MASTER 
NEGA  TIVE 

NO.  93-81227 


MICROFILMED  1993 
COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES/NEW  YORK 


as  part  of  the 
"Foundations  of  Western  Civilization  Preservation  Project" 


Funded  by  the 
NATIONAL  ENDOWMENT  FOR  THE  HUMANITIES 


Reproductions  may  not  be  made  without  permission  from 

Columbia  University  Library 


COPYRIGHT  STATEMENT 


The  copyright  law  of  the  United  States  -  Title  17,  United 
States  Code  -  concerns  the  making  of  photocopies  or 
other  reproductions  of  copyrighted  material. 

Under  certain  conditions  specified  in  the  law,  libraries  and 
archives  are  authorized  to  furnish  a  photocopy  or  other 
reproduction.  One  of  these  specified  conditions  is  that  the 
photocopy  or  other  reproduction  is  not  to  be  "used  for  any 
purpose  other  than  private  study,  scholarship,  or 
research."  If  a  user  makes  a  request  for,  or  later  uses,  a 
photocopy  or  reproduction  for  purposes  in  excess  of  "fair 
use,"  that  user  may  be  liable  for  copyright  infringement. 

This  institution  reserves  the  right  to  refuse  to  accept  a 
copy  order  if,  in  its  judgement,  fulfillment  of  the  order 
would  involve  violation  of  the  copyright  law. 


AUTHOR: 


COOPER,  ROBERT 


TITLE: 


THE  INFIDEL'S 
TEXT-BOOK 

PLACE: 

BOSTON 

DATE: 

1881 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIliS 
PRESERVATION  DEPARTMENT 


Master  Negative  if 


a 


^:^/_^^7-3 


BIBLIOGRAPHIC  MICROrORM  TARGET 


Original  Material  as  I^lined  -  Existing  Bibliographic  Record 


0707 


Cooper,  Robert. 

Tlic  iiifidi^rs  text-book,  beiiifr  tlie  substJiiicc  of  fliirtecn  lec- 
tures oil  the  r>ibl('.  \\\  J^obert  Cooper  ..iStll^.  American, 
rei)nblisbetl   from   the  London   ed.      ]'>oston,  J.   P.  IMendmn, 

1^5.^7  1881. 

iv,  ucr,  p.    isr"-. 


1.  r.Il)lL — Criticism,  interpretation,  etc.     2.  Free  thouglit.  i.  Title. 


3S-3519G 


Lil)rary  of  Con.c:res.s 


BL2T75.CG7 


(lij 


211 


Restrictions  on  Use: 


nLM     SIZE: 551^_^ 


TECHNICAL  MICROFORM  DATA 

REDUCTION     RATIO:  ^\X 


IMAGE  PLACEMENT:    lA  rilA)    ID     IID 

DATE     FILMED:_Jj3j);_5^ INITI  ALS^_J^__5:_^ 

FILMED  BY:    RESEARCH  PUBLICATIONS.  INC   WOODBRIDGF.,  CT 


r 


Association  for  Information  and  Image  Management 

1100  Way rie  Avenue,  Suite  1100 
Silver  Spring,  Maryland  20910 

301/587-8202 


Centimeter 

12         3        4 

iiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliinliiii 


11 


Ml 


Inches 


5         6         7        8 

liiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliiiiliii 


iiiiiiiimiii|iiM|iiii|iii 


TTT 


TTT 


.0 


I.I 


1.25 


9        10 

liiiiliiiili 


11   12 


iiiliiiiliiii 


IIIIIM  1^ 

■^°-     — 
mil  3  2 

120 

t      u 

biku. 


1.4 


ITT 


2.5 


2.2 


2.0 


1.8 


1.6 


13       14       15    mm 

MJimlmjIjmhm 
I  I  I  I     I  I  I 


1 


MnNUFfiCTURED   TO   fillM   STfiNDfiRDS 
BY   APPLIED   IMRGE,    INC. 


r 


! 


THE 


INFIDEL-S    TEXT-BOOK, 


BEING    TUE   SUBSTANCE   OF 


TIIIHTEEN    LECTURES 


OX 


THE    BIBLE. 


BY    ROBEUT    COOPER 


BlXrn  AMERICAN, 
REPUBLISHED   FR031    THE    LONDON    EDITION. 


.J^ 


B  0  S  T  0  .\  : 
I^UBLISIIED    BY    J.   P.   MENDUM, 

At  tub  Office  of  tite  Boston  Investigatou. 


I 


PHEFACE. 


5L1I.0I 

cm 


The  Author  of  the  present  publication  has  long 
been  of  opinion,  that  a  small  work,  written  in  a 
plain  and  dispassionate  style,  arranged  with  order 
and  perspicuity,  and  published  at  a  cheap  rate,  con- 
taining a  summary  of  the  best  arguments  of  the 
Infidel  world  against  the  divinity  of  the  Jewish  and 
Christian  Scriptures,  was  a  dcsidenituni  in  heterodox 
literature  that  ought  to  be  supplied  as  speedily  as 
possible.  With  the  view  of  promoting  so  desirable 
a  consummation,  the  following  Lectures  are  respect- 
fully submitted  to  the  consideration  of  the  inquiring 
public. 

Many  Infidel  works  have  appeared,  which  are  of 
so  desultory  a  character,  or  devoted  only  to  some 
particular  portion  of  the  question,  that  they  have 
been,  of  themselves^  as  a  hook  of  ready  reference^ 
of  little  general  use  to  the  "  unbeliever."  If  he 
was  anxious  to  furnish  a  Christian  opponent  with 
a  full  refutation  of  the  subject,  he  has  had  to  pur- 
chase a  variety  of  works,  one  of  which  only,  in 
many  instances,  would  be  as  expensive  as  the  pro- 
duction now  offered  to  him. 


IV 


PREFACE. 


The  ''Infidel's  Text-Book,"  it  is  hoped,  will  prove 
as  useful  a  pocket  companion  to  the  sceptical  com- 
munity as  its  predecessor  —  "  The  Holy  Scriptures 
Analyzed.'' 

The  following  are  the  points  discussed,  which,  it 
is  conceived,  embrace  the  whole  argument : — 

Jjcciures.  Page. 

I.  —  The  History  of  the  Old  Testament.  1 

II.  —  The  History  of  the  New  Testament.  21 
III.  —  The  Character  of  the  Christian  Fathers 

and  Apostles.  39 

TV.  —  External   Evidence.  61 

V.  —  External  Evidence.  79 

YI.  —  The  Geiuiineness  of  the  Scriptures.  97 

YII.  —  Prophecy.  117 

Vni.  —  Miracles.  135 

IX. — The  Consistency  of  the  Bible.  155 

X.  — The  Morality  of  tne  Bible.  177 

XL  — The  Philosophy  of  the  Bible.  199 

XII.  —  Influence  of  the  Bible  on  Society.  221 

XHl.  —  Morality  without  the  Bible.  243 

The  reader  will  please  to  observe,  that  a  separate 
liccture  is  devoted  to  each  of  the  above  subjects,  m 
the  order  in  which  they  are  stated.  This  arrange- 
ment, it  is  presumed,  will  be  a  convenience,  and 
contribute  to  the  general  usefulness  of  the  work. 

London,  (Eu^.)  Jauuaiy,  1846. 


BIBLICAL   LECTURES. 


LECTURE     FIRST. 


HISTORY  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Friends — 

This  evening  we  purpose  to  enter  upon  an  inquiry 
which  demands  the  most  serious  attention  of  every 
unflinching  and  uncompromising  friend  to  truth  and 
enlightenment.  To  those  who  are  solicitous  that  the 
mental  existence  of  man  should  no  longer  be  one  of 
ignorance,  imbecility,  and  delusion,  but  one  ennobling 
scene  ol  intelligence,  reason,  and  free  inquiry,— a 
scene  m  which  his  aspiration  after  the  true  and' the 
good,  would  remain  unchecked  by  the  trammels  of 
priestly  arrogance,  and  vulgar  intolerance,— an  in- 
vestigation hkc  the  present  will  appear  one  of  pecu- 
liar interest. 

We  live  in  an  age  when  it  has  become  imperative 
upon  every  honest  and  independent  man  to  declare 
fearlessly  and  unreservedly,  the  genuine  sentiments 
of  his  mind  upon  eve?y  question  which  involves  the 
freedom  and  progression  of  humanity.  Too  long  have 
the  masses  been  held  in  leading-strings.  Too  long 
have  they  thought  by  pro.zy.  It  is  now  time  to  think 
tor  themselves,  examine  for  themselves,  speak  for 
themselves.  While  they  continue  to  admire  the  play- 
things of  their  mental  babyhood,  and  refuse  to  exert 
the   energy  and  independence    which    become    their 

1 


11 


f 


2 


HISTORY    OF 


maturity,  error  and  imposture  will  continue  to  delude 
and  enslave  them.  Priestcraft  will  still  crush,  in  its 
brutal  grasp,  the  best  efforts  of  the  bold  and  tlie  true. 
I  am  of  opinion,  that  so  long  as  this  great  moral  nui- 
sance—y^/ve^'/cra//— is  tolerated,  all  endeavors  to  se- 
cure the  permanent  independence  of  the  millions  will 
be  frustrated. 

This  it  is,  that,  in  all  ages,  and  all  countries,  but 
more  especially  in  Christendom,  has  blasted  the  hopes 
and  labors  of  the  patriot,  the  philosopher,  and  the 
philantliropist !  It  is,  therefore,  we  enter  upon  the 
subject  before  us,  believing  that  if  the  faith  of  the 
people  m  the  Divinity  of  this  ''  tale  of  a  tub  "  is  once 
exploded,  the  grand  corner-stone  of  the  priestly  sys- 
tem IS  shaken,  and  the  whole  fabric  must  speedily  be 
razed  to  the  ground.  Once  deprive  the  priest  of  his 
magic  wand— the  Bible— and  his  "occupation  will 
be  gone." 

In  this,  our  first  discourse,  I  purpose  to  commence 
a  compendious  history  of  the  ''Holy  Bible,"  from  the 
remotest  date  on  record,  to  the  present  period;  and 
irom  that  history  to  demonstrate  the  moral  impossibil- 
^^yj^^  such  a  production  being  a  revelation  from  Deity. 

We  may  rationally  presume,  at  the  outset,  that  any 
work  emanating  from  a  God,  would  have  been  imme- 
diately and  generally  known,  and   produced  at  once 
such  an  impression  as  to  occasion  instant  and  univer- 
sal conviction.       '']f  God  had  spoken,  the  universe 
must  have  been  convinced."      So  far,  however,   from 
this  being  the  fact,   the  early  history  of  the  Bible  is 
shrouded  m  almost  impenetrable  darkness.       It  was 
entirely  unknown  to  any  of  the  human  race,   except 
a  contemptibly  small  section,    the  Jews,   until  so  late 
a  date  as  the  year  287  B.  C.    Neither  Hesiod,  Homer 
Herodotus,  nor  any  of  the  immortal  minds  of  antiquity, 
make  any  allusion  to  it.     The  great  Phoenician  histo- 
rum,  {^ANCHONIATHo,   though  quoted  by  the  Christian 
latlier,  Euscbius,  makes  no  reference  to  the  Bible,  or 
even  to  the  Jews  as  a  nation.      The  celebrated    Wyt- 


i 


THE     OLD    TESTAMENT.  d 

TKMBACH,  in  his  famous  reply  to  Josephus,  (Opuscula. 
vol.  2,  p.  41G,)  shows  that  the  Jews  only  came  into 
notice  in  Greece  after  the  time  of  Alexander  the  Great, 
and  that  the  historical  monuments  preceding  that  pe- 
riod, tnakc  not  the  slightest  mention  of  any  Jewish 
transaction.  In  sliort,  he  triumphantly  establishes  the 
important  fact,  so  anxiously  withheld  by  the  Christian 
priests, — that  the  Jews  were  nnknown  to  the  world  as 
a  nation^  until  they  were  subjected  by  the  Hotnans. — 
Yet  are  we  to  believe  that  a  book  like  the  Bible,  al- 
leged to  be  '^  divinely  inspired,"  and  so  ^^  essential  ^^ 
to  the  eternal  welfare  of  humanity  at  large,  remained 
so  long  in  utter  obscurity  ! 

Professor  Cooper,  of  Atnei^ica^  observes,  —  "  No 
authentic  historian  of  ancient  times,  Josephus  except- 
ed, has  ever  mentioned  the  Jews  as  an  indo pend- 
ent nation  or  state,  or  a^  being  in  possession  of  Pal- 
estine, or  any  part  of  great  Syria,  before,  or  in  the 
time  of  Alexander.  As  a  nation,  they  appear  to  have 
been  entirely  unknown  to  Herodotus,  and  all  other 
(jJreek  historians.  What  had  become  of  them  when 
Xenophon  wrote  of  the  Eastern  Nations?  which  was 
only  150  years  after  their  alleged  return  from  Baby- 
lon. He  mentions  the  Syrians  of  Palestine  as  under 
the  Persian  government,  but  not  a  irord  about  the  Jcios. 
Herodotus  mentions  the  invasions  of  the  Scythians, 
through  Syria,  even  to  the  borders  of  Egypt ;  but  ac- 
knowledges no  Jews  or  Israelites.  In  the  fragments 
which  remain  of  Sanchoniatho,  Ctesias,  Borosus,  and 
Manetho,  they  are  not  noticed,  even  as  a  petty  or  sub- 
ject state  ;  so  that  we  have  the  fullest  negative  evi- 
dence, that  in  the  times  of  these  historians,  no  part  of 
Syria  was  a  Jewish  country.  Diodorus,  in  detailing 
the  events  in  that  country,  the  Siege  of  Tyre,  (fee, 
during  Alexander's  conquests,  says  not  a  word  of  tlie 
Jews  forming  a  state  or  colony,  or  of  their  boasted 
city  of  Jerusalem;  and  he  is  equally  silent  as  to  then 
existence  as  a  nation,  during  the  time  of  Alexandfi"  ■; 
immediate  successors ;  nor  have  we  any  account  ol 


HISTORY    OF 


THE    OLD    TESTAMENT. 


5 


them,  deserving  of  credit,  until  the  time  of  Antiocluis 
the  4th,  under  whom  they  hved,  and  he  was  suhjcct 
to  the  Ronuuis.  If  the  territory  of  Judea  was  given 
to  them  by  the  King  of  Babylon  only  about  200  years 
before  the  Macedonian  conqueror  went  to  the  east, 
why  did  not  he  and  his  historians  find  tliciti  there  ? — 
The  plain  and  simple  truth  is,  the  Jews  never  formed 
an  independent  state ;  and  that  part  of  Syria  called 
Palestine,  was,  in  all  known  ages,  subject  either  to  the 
Egyptians,  Assyrians,  Babylonians,  Persians,  Greeks, 
or  Romans,  (according  to  the  tide  of  conquest)  as  it 
now  is  to  the  Turks.'" 

But  who  were  these  Jews  wno  alone  enjoyea  the 
]frecioiis  privilege  of  the  "  Holy  Word  ]  "  A  great — 
a  philanthropic — a  noble  peopled  No;  but  on  the 
contrary,  they  were  held  in  sovereign  contempt  by 
cvx'ry  nation  wlio  became  acciuainted  with  them. — 
Ai'OLi.oNius,  as  quoted  by  Josephus  himself,  the  histo- 
rian of  the  Jews,  in  liis  work  against  Apion,  said  of 
them,  "  they  (the  Jews)  were  the  most  trifling  of  all 
the  barbarians^  and  that  they  were  the  only  people 
irho  h(td  never  found  out  anijthing^  useful  for  life.'^ — 
Dr.  Burnet,  m  his  Arehaloifiai  Philosophia^  admits 
that  ''they  were  of  a  gross  and  sluggish  nature — of  a 
dull  and  heavy  disposition — bcret't  of  humanity — a 
vile  company  of  men — an  assembly  of  slaves,  brought 
out  of  Egyptian  prisons,  who  understood  no  art  but 
that  of  making-  bricks  I  "  Josephus  himself,  even 
admits  tliat  his  countrymen  were  so  illiterate  as  never 
to  have  written  anything,  or  to  have  held  intercousc 
with  their  learned  neighbors.  Indeed,  no  people  of 
antiquity  were  more  ignorant,  credulous,  intolerant, 
and  wretched,  than  the  Jews.  While  the  ancient 
Chaldeans,  Arabians,  Egyptians.  Grecians,  and  Ro- 
mans, produced  their  men  of  science  and  erudition, 
the  Jews  added  nothing  to  the  glorious  pyramid  of 
human  knowledge.  And  yet  we  are  to  believe,  even 
in  the  nineteenth  century,  that  a  being  said  to  be  "  all- 
wise,"   and  "  all-good,"  selected   such  a  race  as  his 


4 

1 


"  chosen  people," — the  people  who  were  solehj  and 
s])ccialhj  entrusted  with  his  '•  divine  word."  What  a 
mockery  ! 

I  hasten,  however,  to  show  that  the  Jews  tJiemselves, 
even  their  own  priests^  were  ignorant  of  the  "  divine 
law,"  for  many  centuries  subsequent  to  the  time  when 
ilm  is  supposed  to  have  been  written.  The  first  time 
any  reference  is  made  to  any  work  answerhig  the 
Jewish  Text-book,  was  in  the  year  2S7,  B.  C,  when 
a  priest  named  Ililkiah^  is  stated  to  have  found  "  a 
hook  of  the  law."  The  story  is  told  in  the  31ih  c.  of 
the  2nd  book  of  Chronicles,  vs.  14,  15,  IS,  19,  and 
30. — "  And  when  they  brought  out  the  money  that 
was  brought  into  the  house  of  the  Lord,  Hilkiah,  the 
priest,  FOUND  a  book  of  the  law  of  the  Lord,  given  by 
Moses.  And  Ililkiah  answered  and  said  unto  Sha- 
phaii,  the  Scribe,  I  have  found  the  book  of  the  law^  in 
the  house  of  the  Lord.  And  Ililkiah  delivered  the  book 
to  Shaphan.  Then  Shaphan,  the  Scribe,  told  the 
King,  saying,  Hilkiah,  the  priest,  hath  given  me  a 
book  ;  and  Shaphan  read  it  before  the  King.  And  it 
came  to  pass  when  the  ICing  had  heard  the  words  of 
the  law,  that  he  rent  his  clothes.  And  the  King  went 
up  into  the  house  of  the  Lord,  and  all  the  men  of  Ju- 
dah,  and  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem,  and  the  priests, 
and  the  Levites,  and  all  the  people,  great  and  small. 
And  he  read  in  their  ears  all  the  words  of  the  book 
of  the  covenant  that  was  found  in  the  house  of  the 
Lord."  There  are  two  circumstances  connected  with 
this  story  upon  which  I  feel  it  necessary  to  remark. — 
The  first  is,  that  it  appears  exceedingly  strange  if  the 
''book  of  the  law  "  existed  prior  to  that  date  (628), 
that  the  King,  the  scribes,  the  people,  and,  above  all, 
the  priests^  should  have  displayed  such  gross  ignor- 
ance of  its  contents,  as  to  express  the  utmost  astonish- 
ment upon  its  being  read  to  them.  It  is  evident  if  the 
Jews  were  acquainted  with  the  "law  of  the  Lord" 
before  Hilkiah  read  it  to  them,  they  would  not  have 
manifested  such  surprise.      And  if  this  was  the  first 

I* 


HISTORY   OF 


time  the  Jewish  people  heard  the  law^  it  is  clear   the 
whole  of  the  direct  external  testimony  in  favor  of  the 
authenticity  and  genuineness  of  the  Old  Testament^  {at 
leasts  so  far  as  concerns  the  Pentateuch)  rests   solely 
upon  the  ipse   dlxit  of  the  old  priest   Hilkiah  ;  and 
those  who  have  read  the  Bible,  must  he  familiar  irith 
the  "  honorable  "   character  of  the  Jeirish  priesthood, 
and  will,  therefore,   knoic  what  confidence  to  place  in 
the  testimony  of  such  a  man.      They  will  naturally 
ask,  ^vhat  authority   have  we  that   Hilkiah   did  not 
write  this  book  himself?  or  if  he  really  found  it,  that 
he  did  not  make  what  alterations  he  pleased  ?     From 
the  cunning  with  which  he  acted  on  this  occasion — his 
employing  a  scribe  to  make  it  known  to  the  youthful 
King,  makes  it  very  probable  he  was  really  the  author 
of  the  book  he  pretended  to  have  found,  and  took  this 
opportunity  of  imposing  it  upon  the  mind  of  the  young 
King.    At  all  events,  it  is  manifest  there  was  only  one 
copy  then  in  possession,  of  the  whole  Jewish   nation, 
and  they  were  indebted  for  this  copy  to  <x  priest  who 
offered  no  evidence  of  the  truth  of  his  statement,   but 
his  own  word  !     Presuming,  however,  that  the  Israel- 
ites were  familiar  with  the  "book  of  the  Lord"  ante- 
rior to  its  being  found  by  the  priest   Hilkiah,  is  it  not 
a  matter  of  amazement  such  a  precious  book  should 
have  been  lost  at  all,  much  less  for  so  many  genera- 
tions ^ 

There  are  some  circumstances,  however,  whicli 
lead  us  to  the  opinion  that  the  story  of  Hilkiah  find- 
ing the  book,  and  its  being  read  to  the  people,  is  a 
mere  fiction.  1  will  appeal  to  every  person  in  the 
slightest  degree  acquainted  with  language,  whether 
any  man  could  read  olf,  at  once,  a  book  written  800 
years  before]  The  phraseology  would  necessarily  be 
so  altered  by  time,  as  to  render  it  comparatively  un- 
intelligible at  the  first  glance.  It  is  so  with  the  Latin, 
French,  English,  and  all  other  languages.  Suppose 
any  person  of  the  present  day  was  to  produce  a  book 
of  laws  written  in  the  time  of  King  Ethelbert,  of  Eng- 


THE     OLD     TESTAMENT.  ' 

land,  and  promulgated  by  his  authority,  would  not 
the  learned  world  require  a  full  and  particular  account 
of  die  book,  and  the  discovery  of  it,  and  undeniable 
evidence  of  its  authenticity  before  they  would  believe 
it  1  Here  is  a  book  claiming  to  be  the  autograph  of 
the  great  national  lavvrgivcr  of  the  Jews — the  only 
code  of  laws,  religious  and  civil,— the  only  authority 
for  the  claims  of  the  priests— a  book  that  ought  to 
have  been  periodically  read  to  the  people,  by  the 
clergy  appointed  so  to  do— that  ought  to  have  been 
familiar  to  their  men  of  learning  and  rank— produced 
for  i\\Q  first  time,  after  an  interval  of  800  years,  by  a 
man  who  gives  no  other  account  of  it  than — I  found 
it !  Why,  just  the  same  reason  could  be  alleged  in 
favor  of  the  divhiityof  Joe  Smith's  Bible— the  "Book 
of  the  Mormons."     He  pretends  to  have  fomid  it. 

Professou  Cooper,  in  his  admirable  liCtter  on  the 
Pentateuch,  very  judiciously  observes,  when  referring 
to  the  account  of  Hilkiah  finding  this  book — "  Now, 
of  this  book,  no  account  whatever  is  given  but  this— 
Hilkiah  has  found  a  book.  We  are  not  informed 
where  it  was  hidden  and  found,  on  what  materials  it 
was  written,  in  what  dialect  or  character,  in  what 
kind  of  preservation  it  was.  whether  it  was  an  auto- 
grapli  of  the  Jewish  lawgiver,  or  some  recent  copy, 
what  its  contents  were,  and  what  time  it  took  to  read 
it  •  we  are  furnished  with  no  information  to  authen- 
ticate it,  nor  is  any  inquiry  made  concerning  it. — 
Shaphan  reads  it  off  as  if  it  were  written  recently. 
All  this  is  done  under  the  very  suspicious  circumstan- 
ces of  the  workmen  behig  bribed  by  having  no  reck- 
oning made  with  them  as  to  what  they  had  earned, 
but  the  money  was  delivered  to  diem  in  a  lump, — 2 
Chron.  c.  xxxiv.  v.  17— without  check  or  inquiry,  or 
any  questions  asked.  It  appears,  also,  from  Josiah's 
remarks,  that  neither  the  Jews  of  that  day,  nor  their 
forefathers,  knew  anything  about  the  law,  or  used 
any  observance  of  it.  It  appears,  from  the  whole 
account,  Hilkiah   had  enlisted   his  pupil,  the  young 


HISTORY    OF 


THE     OLD     TESTAMENT. 


king,    in  support  of  the  Jewish  priests,   against  the 
priests  of  Baal ;   and  as  the  Jews  knew  nothing  of  the 
law  of  Moses,   something  of  the  kind  was  necessary 
as  a  system  of  religions  ceremonies.     He  composed  a 
book  of  the  law,  and  pretended  to  have  found  it  in  the 
temple,  after  bribing  his  workmen  to  silence  and  se- 
crecy.     No  wonder,  under  these  circumstances,    that 
when  the  book  was  produced,   no  inquiry  was  made, 
and  no  question   asked.       The  whole  is  a  concerted 
pk^n,  which  the  prophetess  Hulda  is   brought  over   to 
authenticate.     I  say  no  impartial  reader  can  put  any 
other  construction   on    this  manifest  contrivance,  as 
described   in  the  books   of  Kings  and   Chronicles.— 
This  account  amounts  to   full  proof  that  the  book  of 
the  law,  whatever  it  was,   rests  upon   the  credit,  not 
of  Moses,   but  Hilkiah.     It  is  Hilkiah's  book  of  the 
law,  according  to  the  narration   as  it  stands,    for  it  is 
not  attempted  to  trace  it  backwards  to  any  one  else.'' 
But  this  is  not  the  only  time  the  ''Holy  Writings," 
as  we  are  taught  to  call  them,  were  missing.     Wc'^arc 
told  by  Jewish   writers  themselves,    that  "they   were 
completely  lost  during  the  Babylonish  captivity  (Avhich 
was  only  a  few  years  after  they  were  said  to  be  found 
by  Hilkiah),    and  were  not  restored   until  the   priest 
Ezra,  was  inspired  to  re-write  them,   some  -100   years 
before  the  Christian  era.      So   that  we  must  believe 
this  invaluable  book  was  first  lost  for  ei^ht  centuries, 
then  read  for  a  short  time,  and  subsequently  lost  again' 
never  to  he  recovered.    How  the  •'  chosen  people  "  prized 
their  Godly  treasure  !       The  manner  in  which  Ezra 
performed  the  onerous  task  of  re-writing  the  Jewish 
Text-book,  is  detailed  in  4th  book  of  Esdras— a  book 
deemed  authentic  by  the  Greek  church.     He  dictated 
the    Holy    books    during   forty  successive  days    and 
nights,  to  five  scribes,  who   were  continually  writing. 
Thus,    then,  do   the  authenticity  and  £fe?ininencss  of 
the  Old  Testament,  rest  upon  the  authority  of  that  one 
priest,  who  might  dictate  to  the  scribes  what  he  pleased 
—omit  or  add,  or  alter  just  what  he  felt  disposed,— 


\ 


k 

i 

■  I- 


That  he  would  have  every  opportunity  of  indulging 
in  these  liberties,  is  proved  by  the  fact,  as  stated  by 
Brown,  in  his  Dictionary  of  the  Bible,  Bishop  Marsh 
in  his  "Lectures,"  and  in  the  8th  c.  of  Mchemiah, 
that  the  Jews  lost  their  oinn  language  during  the  Ba- 
bylonish captivity,  and  spoke  the  Chaldaic  tongue,  the 
priests  being  obliged  to  expound  the  Holy  books  to  the 
people  in  that  language,  thereby  affording  them  every 
facility  to  introduce  what  matter  they  thought  fit,  the 
multitude  being  quite  incompetent  to  detect  any  inter- 
polation, alteration,  or  omission.  It  is  now  admitted 
by  most  Christian  writers  of  eminence,  that  the  com- 
pilation made  by  Ezra,  is  the  authority  upon  which 
we  have  to  depend  for  our  translations.  Nay,  the 
Cliristian  father  Ireneus,  distinctly  declared  that  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament,  were  not  in  existence 
imtil  ^'- {hey  were  fabricated  seventy  years  after  the 
Babylonish  captivity,  by  Esdras,"  (or  Ezra.) 

This  is  a  fact  of  some  moment,  and  one  with  which 
the  people  are  generally  unacquainted.  Hence,  the 
vulgar  belief  that  the  Bible  is  a  work  of  extraordinary 
antiquity — that  it  was  the  first,  and,  therefore,  accord- 
ing to  the  logic  of  the  crowd,  the  best  that  was  ever 
written.  There  were  many  composers  who  flourished 
before  Ezra — the  real  autlior  of  the  Old  Testament. — 
He  lived  only  400  years  B.  C,  while  Orphens  flour- 
ished 900  B.  C.  Uesiod  and  Homer,  800,  Zoroaster 
and  Belus,  700,  Dycurgus,  Num^,  Thales,  Pittacns, 
and  Bias,  600,  Pythagoras,  j^sop,  Solon,  and  many 
of  the  earlier  Grecian  philosophers,  500  B.  C.  I  shall 
not  remark  upon  the  ancient  books  of  the  Chaldeans, 
Arabians,  Hindoos,  and  Chinese,  as  I  shall  have  oc- 
casion to  refer  to  them  in  a  subsequent  lecture,  or  it 
could  be  easily  shown  that  the  pretended  sacred  writ- 
ings of  these  nations,  are  of  much  greater  antiquity 
than  our  own.  It  is  necessary  I  should  here  inform 
you,  that  there  was  no  proper  canon  or  collection  of 
the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament,  until  the  time  of 
the  synagogue  under  the  Maccabees,  which  was  only 


10 


HISTORY  OF 


about  200  years  before  the  appearance  of  Christ !  l^p 
to  this  period,  the  "  Holy  books  "  were  scattered  and 
liable  to  be  altered  or  amended  just  as  priests  might 
determine  I  It  is  generally  supposed  by  the  "  vulgar" 
that  the  Bible  always  retained  its  present  form,  but 
such  an  idea  is  manifestly  erroneous. 

It   is  a  matter  of  considerable  importance,    at   this 
stage  of  our  inquiry,  to  ascertain  the  character  of  the 
men  who  drew  up  this  canon  or  authorized  collection 
of  the  Jewish   writings.      We  must   know  whether 
they  were  insjnrcd  or  not.     If  they  were  destitute  of 
the  "  Holy  Spirit  "  it  is  possible,  according  to  the  logic 
ot  the  pious,  they  may  have  made  mistakes,  and  very 
serious  ones,  too,  and  thereby  mislead  the  Jewish  and 
Christian  world.     What  says  Le  Clerc^  upon  this  vi- 
tal point? — a  first-rate  Christian  writer.     In  his  Dis- 
quisition  upon  Inspiration,   he  remarks:    '' It  may  be 
said  that  the  books  in  the  Jewish  canon,  ought  to  be 
acknowledged   as  divinely  inspired,   rather  than  the 
Apocrypha  that  never  were  in  it.     I  answer  first,  that 
no  clear  reason  is  brought   to  convince  us  that  those 
who  made  the  canon  or  catalogue  of  their  books,  were 
infallible,   or  had    any  inspiration  whereby  to  distin- 
guish inspired   books  from  those  which  were  not  in- 
spired."     Such  are   the  opinions   of  a  writer  much 
admired   by  Christians  —opinions   which  go  to  prove 
that  we  have  only  the   testimony  of  fallible  human 
beings,  and  those  of  the  worst  class — the  most  fallible 
— ignorant  and  cunning  priests,  in  favor  of  the  genu- 
ineness of  our  present  canon  of  the  Old  Testament. 

Presuming,  however,  that  these  men  were  inspired, 
I  find,  in  reference  to  the  same  Synagogue,  several 
very  extraordinary  circumstances  which  tend,  in  no 
slight  degree,  to  invalidate  the  authenticity  and  gen-, 
uineness  of  the  Old  Testament.  We  arc  told  in  the 
Talmud,  that  this  memorable  assembly  of  priests 
were  about  to  reject  the  book  of  Proverbs,  (one  of  the 
very  fe\\r  decent  books  that  are  to  be  found  in  the  Old 
'Testament,)  the  prophecies  of  Ezekiel  and  Ecclesias- 


I 


THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 


11 


H 


tes,  because  those  writings  were  contradictory  to  the 
law  of  God,  but  a  certain  Rabbi,  having  undertaken 
to  reconcile  them,  they  were  preserved  as  "canoni- 
cal." Here,  the  three  books,  Proverbs,  Ezekiel,  and 
Ecclesiastes,  are  confessedly  presented  to  us  as  altered 
by  an  impudent  Jewish  Rabbi !  Notwithstanding, 
writings  thus  mutilated,  to  suit  the  purposes  of  priest- 
craft, are  declared  to  be  the  word  of  God !  Oh  ! 
orthodoxy,  when  wilt  thou  blush  for  thy  blind  and 
shameless  credulity  7 

But  this  is  not  all.     Tlie  Samaritan  Jews,  and  the 
ancient  Sadducees,   rejected  all  but  the  Pentateuch.— 
There  was  also  about  this  period,  a  prodigious  num- 
ber o{  forged  books   of  Esdras,    Daniel,    and  other 
prophets  in  circulation.      And  what  authority  have 
we  that  our  present  copies  are  not  taken  from  the 
spurious]     From  these  facts,  it  is  obvious,  the  Jeivs 
themselves  differed  as  to  which  of  the  present  canon 
were  genuine,  and  which  were  not.      And  this  differ- 
ence of  opinion  has  existed  down  to  our  time,   both 
amongst  the  most  learned  Jews  and  Christians.     The 
Apocrypha,   for  instance,  is   pronounced   genuine  by 
the  Catholics,  but  utterly  rejected  by  the  Protestants. 
The  Canticles  have  been  denounced  as  forgeries  by 
the  learned  Dr.  Whiston,  and  the  books  of  Jonah  and 
Daniel  have  been  repudiated  by  Doctors  Aitkin  and 
Eichorn,  as  mere    "  legends   and  romances."       Ten 
whole  books  are  rejected  by  the  Swcdenborgians  ;  and 
the  celebrated   Belsham,   in  his    Evidences,   p.   117, 
though   supporting   Christianity,    positively   declares 
that  "of  the  law  of  Moses,   that  which  is   genuiiie^ 
bears  but  a  small  proportion  to  that  which  is  spiiri- 
ous  !  "    And  we  arc  denounced  as  "dangerous  men," 
because  we  will  not  believe  that  to  be  divine,   upon 
which  such  contradictory  opinions  exist,  amongst  the 
very  people  who  profess  to  acknowledg    it ! 

I'must  now  acquaint  you  with  a  very  curious  fact 
connected  with  this  portion  of  our  inquiry,  as  attested 
upon  the  authority  ot  a  distinguished  Christian  pro- 


t 


12 


HISTORY  OF 


THE     OLD     TESTAMENT. 


13 


fessor.      Granting  for  a  moment  that  all  the  present 
books  of  the  Scripture  canon  are  genuine,  I  neverthe- 
less hold  that   the  Christian  world  are  not  in  posses- 
sion of  the  real  ''  Word  of  God,"  inasmuch  as  many 
of  the  "  sacred"  books  have  been  absolutely  lost,  and 
never  transmitted  to  posterity.     In  confirmation  of  an 
opinion  so  bold,  and,    apparently,   unwarrantable,  I 
shall  first  quote  from  Du  Pin.     He  was  Professor  of 
Philosophy,  at  Paris,  and  author  of  "  a  complete  his- 
tory of  the  canon,  and  writers  of  the  books  of  the  Old 
and  New  Testaments."      From  vol.   1,  c.  1,  sect.  8, 
and  page  26,  of  that  memorable  work,  I  take  the  fol- 
lowing passage: — "St.  Eucharius  says,  it  is  evident 
why  we  have  not  remaining   the  books   which  the 
Holy  Scriptures  approve  of,  because  Judea,   having 
been  ravaged  by  the  Chaldeans,  and  the  ancient  bib- 
liotheque   being  burnt,   there  remaining  only  a  small 
number  of  the  l)ooks  which  at  present  make  np  the 
Holy  Scriptures,  and  which  were  collected  and  re-es- 
tablished by  the  care  of  Ezra."     Here,   then,  we  are 
informed   that  before  the  ravages  of  the  Chaldeans, 
and    tho    burning  of   the   ancient    bibliothcque,    the 
"  Word   o{  God ''    consisted   of  a   great   number   of 
books,    but  in  consequence   of  that  event,  many   of 
them  were  destroyed,   and  those   wc  have  remaining, 
arc  but  a  sJiiall  portion  of  what  once  constituted  the 
"  Holy  l]ook  !  " 

But  I  find  that  the  Jews  themselves  actually  kuunt 
several  of  the  holy  books,  and  lost  others.  Simon,  in 
his  "  Critical  History  of  the  Version  of  the  New  I'es- 
tament,"  quotes  St.  Chrysostom  as  follows  : — '^  Tlie 
Jews  having  lx3en  at  sometimes  careless,  and  at  others 
profane,  they  suffered  some  of  the  sacred  books  to  be 
lost  through  their  carelessness,  and  have  burnt  and 
destroyed  others."  We  are  here  deliberately  told,  by 
Christian  writers  of  great  repute,  that  the  Jews  were 
so  grossly  negligent  about  the  "  Word  of  God  "  that 
much  of  it  is  completely  lost,  and  other  portions  they 
actually  burnt  and  destroyed  !  !      Burnt  the  Bible  !!  ! 


What   outrageous  sacrilege!      Had  it   been  Ltfidels 
who  had  burnt  the  Bible,  what  an  affecting  story   we 
should  have  iieard  from  the  '^  gentleman  of  the  cloth  ! 
All   the  ladies  in  Christendom  would  have  been  ni 

tears !  ,       •  ,      i  •  *. 

There  is  something  connected  with  this  matter 
which  is  not  a  little  singular,  and,  to  the  true  Chris- 
tian, not  a  little  alarming.  We  are  assured  that  a 
belief  in  the  Bible  is  essential  to  our  eternal  salvation. 
Now  we  have  not  the  "  Word  of  God,"  but  only  a 
portion,  and  that,  according  to  St.  Eucharius,  a  very 
small  i)ortion.  "  And  therefore,"  says  an  able  writer, 
"  calculating  npon  our  salvation  according  to  the  fiuan- 
tity  of  the  Word  of  God,  we  shall  be  a  quarter  saved, 
and  three  ([uarters  damned'' 

As  a  further  corroboration  of  the  preceding  tacts,  1 
will  give  you  a  brief  quotation  from  Dr.  Campbeirs 
Introduction  to  the  Gospel  according  to  St.  Matthew, 
who  not  only  admits  that  some  ol  the  "inspired 
books  have  been  entirely  lost,  but  even  mentions  some 
of  them  by  name.  "The  Book  of  the  \\  ars  of  the 
Lord  "  says  he,  "  the  Book  of  Jashcr,  the  Book  of 
Nathan  the  Prophet,  the  Book  of  Gad  the  Seer,  and 
several  others,  are  referred  to  in  the  Old  Testament, 
manifestly  as  of  equal  authority  with  the  book  which 
refers  to  them,  and  as  fuller  in  point  ot  information. 
Yet,  these  are,  to  all  appcaranre,  ihuecovek.^bia'  lost. 

1  liave  now  given  vou  a  brief  history  ot  the  O  d 
Testament,  up  to  the  time  of  its  traiislatioii  into  Greek, 
which  event  occurred  in  the  year  2t>t ,  B.  C.  Bclore 
this  date,  the  "  book  of  life  "  had  been  confined  M  tha 
Jews  ahne.  The  individual  so  fortunate  m  abohsliing 
this  pious  "monopoly,"  was  an  Egyptian  King,  1  tol- 
emy  Philadelphus.  He  wrote  to  the  High  Priest  at 
Jerusalem,  requesting  to  be  furnished  with  a  copy 
and  also  seventy-two  learned  men  who  undersloua 
the  Hebrew  and  ihrrk  langun«es,  for  the  |.urix).M^  ol 
translating  it  into  Greek.  Hi«  request  was  concedod ; 
and  the  translation  then  made  wub  culled  the  bcptua- 
2 


14 


HISTORY    OF 


^ 


THE     OLD     TESTAMENT. 


15 


gmt,  from  which,  principally,  the  rest  of  our  transla- 
tions have  been  taken.  It  becomes  a  matter,  therefore, 
of  great  moment,  to  ascertain  whether  this  version 
was  correct,  for  if  not,  presuming  the  Hebrew  text 
was  genuine,  (but  which  1  Jiave  shown  was  not  the 
ease)  we  cannot  be  certain  that  we  possess,  in  our 
modern  copies,  the  true  "  Will  of  God."  Now,  I  dis- 
tinctly affirm,  and  upon.  Christmfi  authority  too,  that 
the  Septuagint  is  not  a  correct  translation. 

Before  I  establish  this  point,  I  will  give  you  an  idea 
of  the  nature  of  the  Hebrew  language,  and  the  great 
difficulty  experienced  in  translating  it.  Simon,  in  his 
^Critical  History,"  alluding  to  the  meaning  of  the 
Hebrew  words,  remarks,—"  It  is  unquestio?iabte  that 
the  greater  part  of  them  are  equivocal,  and  their  sig- 
nification iitterli/  uncertain.  Even  the  most  learned 
Jews  doubt  almost  evcrythin^^  about  their  proper  mean^ 
mg."  Bishop  Marsh,  in  his  celebrated  "  Lectures," 
No  14,  declares  that—"  The  Old  Testament  is  the 
07ily  work  which  remains  in  the  ancient  Hebrew,  nor 
have  we  anything  like  a  lexicon,  or  glossary,  com- 
posed while  It  was  yet  a  living  language." 

One  of  the  most  learned  Hebraists  has  declared  tliat 
no  two  translators  would  agree  in  rendering  any  verb 
from  the  Hebrew.  Godfrey  Higeins  says—"  I  am 
quite  certain  that  I  shall  be  able  to^show— to  prove- 
that  every  letter  of  the  Hebrew  language  has  four, 
and  probably  >x'  meanings."  What  an  accommodat- 
ing language  for  the  priests,  truly  ! 

Le  Clerc  affirms,  in  his  "  Sentim,"  p.  156,  that— 
"  Ihe  learned  merely  guess  at  the  sense  of  the  Old 
Testament  in  an  infinity  of  places,  which  produces  a 
pi^odigious  number  of  discordant  interpretations."— 
The  Christian  Father,  St.  Jerome,  too,  in  his  Com- 
mentary on  the  40th  chap,  of  Ezekiel,  states,  that 
— "  When  we  translate  the  Hebrew  into  Latin,  we 
are  sometimes  guided  by  conjecture  .'  "  As  an  instance 
of  the  guessing  abilities  of  our  learned  interpreters, 
I  may  refer  you  to  that  chapter  in  Genesis  giving  an 


account  of  Noah's  ark.  With  respect  to  the  materials 
of  which  the  ark  is  said  to  have  been  composed,  our 
modern  version  interprets  it  to  be  gopher  wood.  On- 
kilhos  translates  it  as  being  made  oi  cedar  ;  Castellus, 
of  Juniper  wood.  The  Arabic  commentators^  declare 
it  to  be  box  wood;  the  Persian,  pine  wood.  The  cele- 
brated Bochart  declares  it  was  ebony ;  and  Dr.  Geddes 
affirms  it  to  be  ivicker  tvork  ;  while  the  distinguished 
Christian,  Dawson,  stoutly  contends  that  it  was  made 
of  bullrushcs  daubed  with  slime  !  Such  are  the  sin- 
gular difficulties  attending  the  translation  of  the  He- 
brew text,  and  the  contradictory  interpretations  given 
to  the  same  words  by  diffi^rent  writers.  It  is  obvious, 
from  these  facts,  that  no  confidence  can  be  placed  in 
any  translation  from  the  Hebrew  tongue. 

While  upon  this  subject  it  is  necessary  I  should  re- 
mind you  that,  up  to  the  5th  Century,  the  Hebrew 
language  was  utterly  destitute  of  any  method  of  punc- 
tuation, as  well  as  void  of  voivels.  It  was  a  mere 
mass  of  words  without  order  or  system.  To  n  seer  tain 
the  true  signification  was  next  to  impossible.  Dr.  Du 
Pin  observes  : — "The  Hebrew  alphabet  is  composed 
of  twenty-two  letters,  as  well  as  those  of  the  Samari- 
tans, Chaldeans,  and  Syreneans.  But  besides  these 
letters,  none  of  which  is,  at  present,  a  votvel,  and  by 
consequence,  they  cannot  determine  the  pronunciation, 

the   Hebrews  have  invented  points,  which,   being 

put  under  the  letters,  serve  instead  of  vowels.  These 
vowel-points  serve  not  only  to  fix  pronunciation,  but 
also  the  signification  of  a  word,  because  the  word 
being  diftcrently  pointed,  signify  things  wholly  differ- 
ent. This  is  the  circumstance  which  has  made  the 
question  as  to  the  antiquity  of  the  points  seem  of  con- 
sequence, and  hath,  therefore,  been  treated  of  very 
.prolixly.  Some  have  pretended  that  these  points  are 
as  ancient  as  the  Hebrew  language,  and  that  Abram 
made  use  of  them.  Others  make  Moses  the  author 
of  them.  But  the  most  common  opinion  among  the 
Jews,  is,  that  Moses  having  learned  of  God  the  true 


16 


HISTORY   OF 


pronunciation  of  Hebrew  words,  this  science  was  pre- 
served in  the  Synagogue  by  oral  tradition,  until  the 
time  of  Esdras,  who  invented  the  points  and  accents 
to  preserve  it.  Elias  Levita,  a  German  Jew  of  the 
last  age,  and  very  learned  in  the  Hebrew  Grammar, 
hath  rejected  this  sentiment,  and  maintamed  that  the 
nivention  of  points  was  much  later.  He  ascribes  it  to 
the  Jews  of  Tiberias,  about  the  500th  year  of  Christ 
and  alleged  that  this  art  was  not  perfected  until  about 
the  year  1040,  by  two  famous  Massorites,  Ben  Asher 
and  Ben  Napthali." 

From  this  it  appears  that  it  was  not  until  the  11th 
Century  that  anything  like  certainty  was  given  to  the 
signification  of  that  language  in  which  it  is  said  God 
thought  proper  to  convey  his  ideas  and  wishes  to  poor 
luman  nature  !  Wonderlully  strange  that  he  should 
have  revealed  his  ''will  "  in  the  most  imperfect  and 
ambignous  language  in  the  world  !— a  language  which 
the  most  erudite  could  not  clearly  understand.  Com- 
mon sense  would  have  suggested  the  selection  of  the 
plainest  and  most  perfect  language  possible,  but,  I 
suppose,  ''  God's  ways  are  not  our  ways."  I  hope 
they  never  will  be,  if  they  are  as  stupid  as  these. 

1  have  made  an  assertion,   however,   which   it  is 
highly  necessary   1  should  substantiate.      We  have 
affirmed  that  the  Septuagint  translation,  from  which 
our  modern  versions  are  generally  taken,  is  not  cor- 
rect.    ]\ow   for  my  proof     My  first  authority  is  the 
learned  Christian  Professor,  Du  Pin.     He  remarks   in 
the  work  before  quoted,-^''  In  short,  wc  must  confess 
that  there  are   manj/  differences  betwixt  the  Hebrew 
text  and  the  version  of  the  Septuagint,  which  arose 
Irom  the   corruption  and   confusion  that  are   in  the 
l.reek   version   we  now  have.      It  is  certain   that  it 
hath  been   rccised  divers  limes,  and  that  several  au- 
thors have  taken  the   liberty  to  add  thereunto,  to  re- 
trench,   and  to  correct  divers  things!"      He  further 
observes—" It  is  mere  superstition  to  assert,  as  some 
authors  do,  that  the  Hebrew  text  which  we  have  at 


THE     OLD     TESTAMENT. 


17 


present,  is  not  corrupted  in  any  place,  and  that  there 
is  wo  fault,  nor  anything  left  out,  and  that  we  must 
indispensably  follow  it  at  all  time.  This  is  not  only 
to  speak  without  all  evidence,  and  contrary  to  all  pro- 
babili;y,  but  we  have  every  good  proof  to  the  contrary. 
For,  in  the  first  place,  there  have  been  diirerences  be- 
twixt the  oldest  of  the  Hebrew  copies,  which  the 
Massorites  have  observed,  by  that  which  they  call 
Keri,  and  Ketib,  and  putting  one  of  the  readings  in 
the  text,  and  the  other  in  the  margin,  we  have  the 
dififerent  readings  of  the  Jews  of  the  East,  and  the 
Jews  of  the  ^Vesl, — the  Ben  Asher,  and  the  Ben 
Napthali." 

My  next  authority  is  a  still  more  learned  writer 
than  even  Du  Pin,  and  with  whose  works  the  Eng- 
lish reader  may  be  better  acquainted.  ^ 

1  mean  Bellamy,  author  of  the  New  Translation  of 
the  Bible.     In  the  introduction  to  that  able  and  elab- 
orate production,  Bellamy  denounces,  in  no  qualified 
terms,  the  Scptuagint  version,  and  points  out  numer- 
ous  errors   and    discrepancies   of  the   most   flagrant 
character.     In  Genesis,  says  he,  c.  15,  v.  11,   there  is 
a  sentence,    "  he  drove  them  away,"   which  ought  to 
have  been  "  he  remained  vith  them.^''    In  the  6  c.  v.  6, 
there  is  an  expression    ''  it  grieved  him  at  his  heart," 
which   should  be   '•  he  idolized  himself  at  his  heart," 
implying   congratulation,   rather   than  regret.      The 
sentence  in   the  22  c.  v.  16,   stating  that   "thus   she 
was  reproved,'^  should  have  been  translated*  "  thus 
she  was  justified,''  meaning  the  very   reverse  to  that 
we  are  trained  to  believe.    The  notorious  exclamation 
of  Jeremiah,  in  the  20  c.  of  his  book,   ^'  O  Lord,  thou 
hast  deceived  me,  and  I  was  deceived^'^  should  have 
been  rendered  "  O  Lord,  thou  hasi  persuaded  me,  thus 
I  wsiS  persuaded  1 1 '^       These   and  many  other  Holy 
blunders,  the  learned  Bellamy  exposes,  and  concludes 
by  declaring  that  the  authors  of  the  Septuagint  did 
not  critically  understand  the  Hebrew  language.     And 
yet,  forsooth,  it  is  the  comoosition  of  these  pious  blun- 

2* 


18 


HISTORY    OF 


'^l7''Z!^1^fl%r"'f'^''^''  to  esteem  as  "  Di- 

lo  tne  JNcw    1  ranslation,  that  the  version  known  a«! 

The  rJTi  ^^  ""  '*"'y  ="  «l'»'KIOUS  COPY  !  '- 

i  he  real  Sepumgint  was  never  circnlated,  being  lost 
at   the   destnictiou   of  the   Alovnn.lrin,.    i  ;i     ^ 
winch  u  was  then  depos.ted.    Tl^  it  "p   ays" '  V^ 
Septuagmt  translation  continually  ^cddsto  tTes  Jl 
^ndckanffesthe   Hebrew  text  oIpleasn"^f'iZ^\Z[ 
he  original  translation  of  it  wai  lost  long  ago    and 

copy    "Cfji,!""'  S"'"'  "^y  ♦'^^'^  --«>  i«  a  spurious 
icarned  Prelate  i^TreS  !t  fol lollatre  ChnltSn 

Mdd  J'— -\'f '"  than  .«foS""  fC^h" 

this^frot'oTeet'tSr'^^^^  ^"  ^-  '^^^ 

Serlt'^tr;^  other  langnagcs.-  The  CllS. 
the  Om'  t!;.  '  ^""d'»g  to  the  Latin  version  of 

-''?f  thTy  saTthh'^r'"  ^^^^  the  Septnagint,   asks 

them  teirme^i'^/  "tTfr  ""  "','^  "^^""''  '«' 
rf«7Are/,/  contr^r  *  *''"'  "'^  ^''^^st  as  many 

truti    be  searched  f         "''  ^n^tscript.,  and  if  the 
be  searched  for  among  so  many,  why  shonid 


THE    OLD    TESTAMENT. 


19 


we  not  have  recourse  to  the  Greek  original,  in  order 
to  correct  the  faults  that  have  proceeded  either  from 
the  bad  translations  of  the  interpreters,  or  from  unrea- 
sonable corrections  that  have  been  made  by  unskilful 
critics,  and  alterations  that  have  happened  through 
the  carelessness  of  the  copiers."  We  are  told  by  St. 
Jerome,  that  Origen,  the  famous  Christian  Father, 
and  opponent  of  the  ancient  Infidel  Celsus,  wrote  a 
version  of  the  Old  Testament,  from  which  many  of 
our  more  modern  copies  have  been  taken.  Jerome  de- 
clared that  in  this  translation,  Origen  altered  the  Greek 
text  most  abominablv.  The  following  are  the  words 
of  Du  Pin  on  this  point :— "  St.  Jerome  makes  frequent 
mention  of  the  additions,  corrections,  and  subtractions 
made  in  the  version  of  the  Septuaghit  by  Origen,  and 
of  the  bars  and  astericks  he  made  use  of  for  that  pur- 
pose. 'When  Origen,'  says  Jerome,  '  saw  there  vv^as 
less  in  the  Greek  than  the  Hebrew,  he  did  supply  it 
from  the  version  of  Tlieodotion,  and  put  an  asterisk 
or  star  to  it,  to  signify  that  this  was  to  illustrate  what 

was  obscure .' '" 

This  same  Theodotion,  we  are  informed  by  St.  Je- 
rome, was  an  Infidel,  and  that  his  version  was  con- 
founded with  the  Scptuagint.  The  French  Professor 
says,  "By  the  carelessness  of  the  transcribers,  and 
sometimes  of  those  who  set  them  to  work,  the  aster- 
isks of  Origen,  being  misunderstood,  or  entirely  left 
out,  in  some  places,  the  additions  of  Theodotion  were 
cotifoundcd  with  the  version  of  the  Septuagint,  which, 
perhaps,  moved  Jerome  to  say,  that  Origen  had  cor- 
rupted and  confounded  the  version  of  the  Septuagmt." 
Thus,  then,  does  it  appear,  that  in  the  version  of  Ori- 
gen, from  which  many  of  our  present  copies  are  taken, 
the  'words  of  Theodotion  the  Infidel,  were  confounded 
with  God's  words!  !  What  a  medley !  Oh!  Chris- 
tians, how  do  you  know  when  you  read  your  Bibles, 
but  you  are  reading  the  words  of  an  Infidel  7  Let 
me  advise  you,  for  your  own  sakes,  never  to  read  it 
again 


20 


HISTORY    OF    THE    OLD    TESTAMENT. 


ma^v  ov  ;J  P"W.shed  Jo„rnal,   from  whicl.  sa 

records  ffn./     K  7  T*"""  '"^''°  ''y  ""^  P^<=««  »'■  l="e, 
records  a  fact  winch  I  cannot  bnt  submit  to  you  ere  ] 

the  first  ^5li:r'"''r;''  T\  ">  "^^'  «"''«h  llusCm 

for  tlL  f    '  ^  ^'  "•'^'^  "'^  '  '^''""  ^''^'"  '""  IJ«  afrai,! 

1  s.  n,o!  1  "°'  '?■'  "'".^"-^  "nd  vermin  by  night  '" 
one  o, If  ''"'"^'  "'  r""  '»  °"^  moden  version,  is 
F^tlttonr ■""''''  correcfons,"  spoken  of  by 

I  liMve  now,   my  friends,  given   vou  as   fnr  n^  m.r 

IWamen^^^^^^^^^  ^^'."^^^'  ^^^^  H^tory  entire  ("^ 
Icstament,  from  the  earliest  period  to  the  time  of  its 

the  New  To  .  f  '1  ^"'^^^y'   ^"  connection   with 

the  New  lestament,  to  the  present  century,  and    snn- 

a  '  l^e  wf^  f"/^  "^"?"^  '^'^  ^^^"--  and^  import  U, 
nnJ  ?  'f '  ''^^^  ^'^^^'  ^^^'"'"g  been  read  to  you 

SS'V^'"''^"^T^I^  as  respectable  and  n.m^: 
peacliable.  In  retirmg,  I  distinctly  challen-e  any  man 
to  meet  the  testimony  I  have  adduced.    I  ?onn  mmd 

Ken  t^'\r''^Tn^  ''  -"^^^  on?;  ten7  o" 

S     n.    T'h  ^?  ^^  '^'^'  ^'^'^  scheme  of  mipostnre 

man  w  """^  '''''^''  '*^"  ^"^"^^^  P^^^th  way  of 

man  with  error,  ignorance,  cant,  and  delusion  ' 


LECTURE    SECOND. 


HISTORY  OF   THE  NEW   TESTAMENT. 


Friends — 

In  rising  to  resume  the  subject  upon  which  I  ad- 
dressed you  last  Sunday  evening,  I  deem  it  advisable 
to  recapitulate  the  most  important  points  then  dis- 
cussed. I  adopt  this  course  in  order  that  parties,  who 
may  not  have  been  present  on  that  occasion,  may 
observe  the  connection  between  the  present  and  pre- 
ceding discourse, — a  connection  which  it  is  highly 
necessary  should  be  distinctly  understood. 

We  commenced  by  expressing  our  conviction  as  to 
the  many  advantages  which  must  attend  an  inquiry 
of  this  cliaracter.  We  then  proceeded  to  trace  the 
History  of  the  Old  Testament  from  the  earliest  times. 
We  remarked  that  a  book  said  to  be  so  jireciotis—n 
book,  a  belief  in  which  is  declared  to  be  so  essential  to 
the  eternal  salvation  of  every  human  being,  had  been 
known  only  to  a  contemptibly  small  section  of  the 
human  race,— the  Jews,  until  so  recent  a  period  as 
the  year  287,  B.  C.  Up  to  this  time,  that  barbarous 
race  had  alotie  enjoyed  the  peculiar  and  inesti7nable 
privilege  of  its  perusal.  We  expressed  our  astonish- 
ment at  the  extraordinary  circumstance  of  a  book 
containing  the  revealed  will  of  an  omniscient  and 
omnipotent  Deity  remaining  so  long  in  comparative 
obscurity.  We  then  proceeded  to  show  that  the  Jews 
themselves  were  generally  ignorant  of  the  Sacred  Law 
until  so  late  a  date  as  the  year  628,  before  Christ,  the 
book  of  the  law  being  then  found,  we  were  told,   by 


\ 


^    \ 


22 


HISTORY    OF 


THE    NEW    TESTAMENT. 


23 


an  old  priest  named   Hilkiah,  in  one  of  the  houses  of 
the   Lord     and  further,   that  in  the  niterval  between 
this  period  and  the  year  287,   when  it  was   translated 
into  Greek,  the  "  book  "  had  been  \o^i—absolntclu  de- 
stroyed during  the  Babylonish  captivity.     lu  fact,  the 
Uld   lestament  as  it  is  now  olfered  to  us,  was  a  com- 
paratively  modem  production,    being  written  by  an 
old  cunning  priest  named  Ezra,   only  some  400  years 
before   the  time   of  Christ.     We  n^xt  stated  that  the 
liible  is  7iot  complete,   being  only  a  small  portion  of 
the   ''  word  of  God,"— that  many   books  were  never 
transmitted  to  posterity  in  consequence  of  the  ravages 
of  the  Chaldeans,  and  the  carelessness  and  profanity 
of  the  Jews  themselves,  who  not  only  lost  whole  books 
of  the    "  Bible,"    but  positively  burnt  others.       We 
proved  there  was  no  proper  canon  or  authorized  col- 
lection of  the   Old   Testament,   until   the  Maccabees, 
which  was  only  200  years  before  the  Christian  epoch. 
We  commented  upon  the  translation  of  the  Old   Tes- 
tament into  Greek  by  order  of  Ptolemy  Philadelnhus 
lu  the   year  287,  B.  C.     We  proved  that  this   transla- 
tion could  not  be  depended  upon,   the  most   villanous 
mutilations  having  been  made  in   the  Hebrew  Text 
by   way  of  ''alterations,    additions,   and  omissions^" 
and  that  similar  liberties  had  been  taken  by  the  "  Fa- 
tlicrs  "   in  translations   subsequently  made  from   this 
lamous  version. 

We  have  thus  brought  our  historical   rcmew  of  the 
■Scriptures  to  the   Christian  era.       This  introduces   us 
to  a  new   field  of  discussion.       We  have  now  to  con- 
sider, in  connection  with  the  old.  a  more   recent    pro- 
duction—/Ae  New    Testament.       This  modern  ])ortioii 
of  the ;'  word  of  God"    is  esteemed  by  the  Christians 
as  eminently   valuable   apd  important— so  much  so 
that  were  the  Old  'Yi^simnGut  perfectly  false,  the  New 
I  estament    they  conceive   remains  absolutely   true  — 
Alany  Chnstinus  are  disposed  to  admit,    that  just   and 
reasonable  doubts   may  be  entertained  of  the  autheu- 
ticity    and  genuineness   of  many   books   of  the  Old 


4 


Testament,  but  the  evidence  in  favor  of  the  New 
they  affirm  is  irrefragable.  To  this  opinion,  however, 
I  must  decidedly  demur.  I  deny  that  the  testimony 
in  favor  of  the  New  Testament  is  unquestionable.  I 
question  indeed  whether  it  is  at  all  superior  to  the 
Old.  In  some  respects,  the  Old  Testament  has  the 
advantage,  for  the  most  important  portion  of  that  di- 
vision of  the  "Holy  Word"  is  said  to  have  been 
written  by  the  man  immediately  connected  with  it — 
Moses ;  but  Christ — the  hero  of  the  New  Testament, 
never  wrote  a  line  of  that  book,  nor,  according  to  Dii 
Pin,  did  he  ever  order  any  one  else  to  write  it.  Neither 
the  Old  nor  the  New  Testament,  however,  have  the 
advantage  of  the  Koran.  Mahomet  declares  that  he 
received  his  Bible  directly  from  Heaven,  chapter  by 
chapter.  Now  the  Christian  Scriptures  are  confessedly 
written  by  priests, — priests,  as  I  shall  show  in  a  sub- 
sequent address,  of  the  most  ignorant,  credulous  and 
worthless  character. 

My  friends,  it  is  admitted  on  all  hands  that  no 
portion  of  the  New  Testament  was  written  during  the 
life  of  Christ.  The  very  earliest,  as  stated  by  the 
(vhristians  themselves,  was  not  written  till  the  year 
G 1 — that  is,  rather  more  than  30  years  after  his  death. 
But  we  have  just  reason  to  believe  they  were  not 
written  until  long  afterwards,  particularly  the  four 
(jrospels. 

The  first  time  any  allusion  is  made  to  the  Gospels 
was  by  the  Christian  Father,  Ireneus,  in  the  year  182, 
that  is,  nearly  150  years  after  the  time  of  Christ.  Dr. 
Lardner  maintains  that  the  five  books  of  Ireneus 
against  heresies,  in  which  this  reference  is  made,  (vol. 
3,  c.  1,)  could  not  be  published  earlier  than  this  date. 
Tillemont  and  Massuett,  two  great  French  Christian 
writers,  think  the  more  probable  date  of  this  publica- 
tion was  102,  about  the  latter  end  of  the  timo.  of 
Fihitherus.  (See  the  London  edition  of  Dr.  T^ardner's 
works,  in  12  vols.,  1788,  vol.  2,  1.51  to  159.) 

Had   these   books   been    in  existence   prior   to    this 


24 


HISTORY    OF 


period,  It  ,s  exceedingly  strange  tlicy  arc   not  men- 
tioned  by  any  of  tlie  Apostolic  Mhcvs  who  lived^  a 
or  immediately  subsequent  to,  the  time  of  ChrLTno; 

closfoftrr''?"''?  '=**•""'  ^^'"'  fl-->'ed  at  Z 
itnrv  ],  \  "'"^  commencement  of  the  second 
century.  It  is  admitted,  on  all  hands,  that  thev  are 
not   named  by  the  apostolic  father   liar,.abas,'^who 

lounslicd  A.p.  %— nor  by  Hermas,  who  lived  A.  D 
100-norbySt.  Ignatius,  who  lived  in  the  year  107 
-nor  Po  ycarp  108-Papias,  llC-Justin  Vartyr, 
yel7lnm°'  ^  Hegesippus,  so  late  as  the 

The  learned  Dodwcll,  in  his  Dissertation  unon 
Irencus  says  ■'  We  have  at  this  day  certain  Zs 
authentic  ecclesiastical  writers  of  the  times,  as  crm- 
ens  Romanus,  Harnabas,  Hermas,  Ignatms,  and  Poly, 
carp,  who  wrote  in  the  same  ordc?  wherein  1  have 
uuned  them,  and  after  all  the  writers  of  the  ]\W 
Testament.  But  m  Hermas  you  will  not  find  o»e 
single  passage,  or  any  mention  of  the  Ne-v   Tcsti 

muned"'''"  '"  "''  *'""  '"'*'  ''  ^"^  ''""  ""^  ""=  Evangelists 
I  repeat,  then  that  Iremus  is  the>-.,;  ^vho  mentions 
he  four  go.spels   which  circumstance  did  not  occ  ? 
ur  td  h><i  years  after  the  death  of  ChriM.     And  upon 
what  authority  docs  Irencus  present  these  four  gospds 
as  genuine  )     \\  hy,  on  his  onm  authority  onl/  Now 
ct  us  suppose  a  case.     Charles  the  1st  succeeded  to 
he  throne  in  lG2S-some  200  years  ago.     Sunpo  c 
.at  now,  1816  for  the  first  tiZ,  a  desp'icable  Jnest 
like   Irencus   should   say  that  certain  accounts  of  a 
man  endowed  wifli  miraculous  powers,  who  lived  in 
London   in  1028    and  who  worked  Miracles   there 
vere    published    bv   JVIatthe«^    Bay,   Mark    Randall' 

7    r./-!r"'  •  o'"" /"'"'stoue,  {persons  not  heard 

<>J  befo,e,  or  mentioned  by  any  other  writer  of  the 
t^m<^,)  01  something  miraculous  that  happened  under 
Charles  the    l.t.     What  credit  ought   to   be  given  o 


THE    NEW     TESTAMENT. 


26 


ascribed  to  siicli  a  narration?     Yet  on  such  kind  of 
evidence,  is  Christianity  founded  ! 

13 ut  pray  who  was  this  Ireneus,  upon  whose  verac- 
it}^  so  much  depends?  Why,  a  "Christian  Father," 
and  one  of  the  most  ignorant  and  credulous,  of  that 
superstitious,  cunning,  and  I  will  add,  dishonest  class 
of  men. 

J  shall  liave  occasion  to  speak  in  very  strong  terms 
of  the  character  of  these   "holy  men"   in  my  next 
discourse.      I   reserve,   therefore,  any  lengthened  re- 
marks upon   this  head,  until  a  future  occasion.     At 
this  moment  I  shall  only  quote  a  brief  passage  from 
the   De  Script.   Interpret.,  page   73,  of  the  celebrated 
Dr.  AVhithy,  where  he  is  alhidmg  to   the  conduct  of 
Irencus  and  the  Father   Papias.     The   Dr.  complains 
bitterly  of  their  having  "handed  down  the  actions  of 
the  apostles  and   their  disciples  from  paltry  rumors^ 
and  dubious    reports^  and  as  having  scand<dously  de- 
luded tlie  world  witli  fables   and    lying  narrations.''^ 
If  such  were   the  general  practices  of  Ireneus,  what 
authority  have  we  that  these  four   Gospels,  said  by 
liini  to  be  written  by  Matthew,   Mark,   Luke,  and 
John,  are  not,  like  the  rest  of  his  productions,  "mere 
fables  and  lying  narrations?"     We  have  every  occa- 
sion to  believe,  indeed,  that  such  is  the  fact,  especially 
when    we    remember    the    extraordinary    reasons    he 
assigns  for  there   being  four,   and  just  four  gospels 
inspired.      His  reasons  are,   "because  there  are   but 
four  cpiarters  of  the  world,  and  every  cherubim  has 
four  faces  !  ^^     Strange  animals  those  cherubims,  un- 
questionably, but  what  a  reason  I     How  worthy  of  a 
|)riest !     Every  cherubim  has   four  faces,  ergo^  there 
are  only  four   inspired  gospels  !     What  logic  !     How 
convincing  t     How  miansiucrcd^lc !     How  worthy   of 
the  bool^  they  arc  written  to  support ! 

And  we  arc  "  Infidels  "  because  we  cannot  believe 
such  farrago.  Be  it  so.  Better  be  the  Infidel  whose 
reason  and  conmion   sense  enables  him   to  repudiate 


:] 


! 


26 


HISTORY    OF 


such  absurdity,  than  the  saint  whose  blind  creduHty 
and  narrow  prejudices  induce  him  to  accredit  it. 

At  tlie  time  Ireneus  introduced  these  four  gospels 
to  the  world,  it  is  notorious  there  were  many  other 
"gospels"  in  circulation,  which  were  held  in  high  es- 
teem by  the  majority  of  the  early  Christians.  By  what 
means,  then,  did  Ireneus  determine  that  these  four 
gospels  (done  were  genuine,  and  the  rest  spurious  \ 
Did  the  "cherubims  with  four  faces"  enlighten  him 
upon  the  subject  ]  Be  that  as  it  may,  such  an  impor- 
tant cpicstion  could  not  be  determined  except  by.  one 
of  enlarged  intellect,  erudition,  and  perspicacity.  And 
was  Ireneus  such  a  man  7  Confessedly  not.  On  the 
contrary,  he  was  weak  and  credulous,  and,  as  Dr. 
Whitby  says,  in  the  habit  of  Av^riting  "fables  and  ly- 
ing narrations."  It  is  evident,  therefore,  the  authority 
of  Ireneus  upon  this  vital  point  is  just  worth  as  nuich 
as  his  logic. 

To  show  you  the  great  difficulty  attending  tliis 
portion  of  our  iiupiiry,  and  the  very  unsatisfactory 
manner  in  which  it  was  decided,  I  will  cpiote  from 
the  4th  vol.,  page  2G0,  of  the  Introduction  to  the 
Scriptures,  second  edition,  by  the  Rev.  J.  H.  Home : 
"  The  accounts  left  us,"  says  he,  "  by  eclesiastical 
writers  of  antiquity,  concerning  the  time  ichen  the 
gospels  were  written  or  published,  are  so  vagiie^  con- 
fused^ and  discordant^  that  they  load  to  no  certain  or 
solid  determination.  The  eldest  of  the  ancient  fathers 
collected  the  Reports  of  their  own  times,  and  set 
them  down  as  certain  truths^  and  those  who  Ibllowed 
adopted  their  accounts  with  implicit  reverence.  Thus 
tradition,  true  or  false^  passed  on  from  one  writer  to 
another,  without  examination^  until,  at  last,  it  became 
too  late  to  examine  them  to  any  purpose." 

I  have  said  that  at  the  time  Ireneus  first  mentioned 
these  four  gospels,  there  were  many  others  in  circula- 
tion, some  vi{  which  had  existed,  we  are  told,  for 
nearly  a  century  before,  and  were  considered  genuuie 


THE     NEW     TESTAMENT. 


27 


by  the  early  Christians,  and  actually  read  and  qvotvd 
as  the  word  of  God.  There  were,  also,  a  great  num- 
ber of  Epistles,  Acts,  Revelations,  fe.,  which  were 
also  deemed  genuine.  The  best  list  of  these  spurious 
productions  is  to  be  found  hi  Toland's  Amy  liter,  as 
corrected  by  .foiies  in  his  Treatise  on  the  Canon, 
copied  into  Home's  collection.  I  may  name  a  few  of 
the  most  important.  IMiere  were  the  Gospel  of  St. 
Peter,  St.  Thomas,  St.  Mathias,  St.  Bartholomew,  St. 
Phihp,  .Tudas  Iscariot,  Thaddeus,  and  Barnabas.  The 
Acts  of  St.  Peter,  St.  Paul,  St.  Andrew,  St.  John,  St. 
Phihp,  and  St.  Thonids ;  and  the  Revelations  of  St. 
Paul,  St.  Thomas,  St.  Stci)hen,  and  the  (^/cW  Ajiostle. 
There  were  upwards  of  fifty  altogether.  All  these 
Gospels,  Acts,  and  Revelations  were,  at  one  time, 
considered  the  "divine  w^ord."  It  was  only  by  beliciv- 
mg  in  these  books  that  mankind  could  be  "saved;  " 
while  the  (;osi)els.  Acts,  and  Revelations  which  are 
now  olfercd  to  us  were  denounced  as  spurious,— as 
"tables  and  lying  narrations." 

And  who  are  the  most  likely  to  know  which  are 
false  and  which  are  true '/  Those  who  lived  at  the 
time  these  books  arc  said  to  have  appeared,  or  those 
who  fiourished  centuries  sul)se(juently  ']  Undoubtedly 
the  lormer.  Viewing  the  subject,  therefore,  hi  this 
point  of  view,  we  have  just  reason  to  believe  that 
those  rejected  gospels  are  more  likely  to  be  true;  (  if 
any  are  so)  than  our  modern  version.  And.  oh,  Christ- 
ians !  if  sucli  be  the  fact,  in  what  a  quandiuy  are 
you  placed  /  What  a  serious  responsibility  rests  upon 
your  pious  shoulders?  You  have  rejected  the  true 
gospels,  and  allowed  them  to  fall  into  utter  oblivion, 
while  you  have  sanctioned  that  which  is  false  and 
spurious  !  ! !  How  many  millions  of  credulous  wretch- 
es liave  you  by  these  means,  led  into  eternal  perdition  \ 
and  it  you  believe  in  these  books  yourselves,  yon  may 
also  meet  wiili  the  same  unenviable  fate  !  Miserable, 
mistaken,  and  unfortunate  men!  What  a  motley  as- 
semblage  of    dchi(](Ml    Christians, —believers    in    the 


28 


HISTORY    OF 


wrong  gospel,  will  the  honest  but  despised  Infidel 
behold  on  his  arrival  at  the  torrid  regions  of  eternity  ! 
What  a  splendid  run  of  business  his  Satanic  Majesty- 
will  enjoy  !  What  a  monopoly  of  "departed  spirits  ' ! 
No  "  bad  times  " — no  lack  of  trade  with  hhn.  The 
Infidel  may  rest  assured,  when  he  is  snugly  reposing 
in  his  infernal  domicil,  that  he  will  not  quite  be  "lone 
in  his  glory." 

To  convince  you  that  I  am  not  indulging  in  mere 
idle  surmise,  or  uncourteous  banter,  1  will  refer  you 
to  the  writings  of  some  celebrated  Christians.  This, 
I  opine,  will  expunge  (dl  my  "sins,"  for  if  you  can 
only  cite  some  Christian  pri(?st  in  favor  of  any  propo- 
sition, it  will  be  received  with  acclamation,  while, 
were  the  same  statements  to  come  from  one  who  is 
esteemed  an  "  hifidel,"  they  would  instantly  be  repro- 
bated as  "  blasphemies."  1  have  affirmed,  then,  that 
many  of  these  rejected  gos[)els  were  held  in  high 
consideration,  not  only  before,  but  subsecjuent,  to  the 
sanction  of  our  pn^sent  canon.  Nay,  many  learned 
men  of  recent  times  have  had  strong  predilections  in 
favor  of  many  of  these  discarded  books,  considering 
them  as  genuine  as  any  of  our  canonized  version, 
liisten  to  the  opinions  of  the  learned  J)r.  Whiston,  in 
his  "  Exact  Time,"  page  '^S.  lie  has  declared  that 
no  less  than  tu'oity-sevcn  of  these  books  are  genuine. 
"Can  any  one,"  says  he,  "be  so  weak  as  to  imagine 
Mark,  and  Luke,  and  .lames,  and  Jude,  who  were 
none  of  them  untrc  than  conipanions  of  the  Apostles, 
to  be  our  sacred  and  unerring  guides,  while  Barnabas, 
Thaddeus,  Clement,  Timothy,  Hennas,  Ignatius,  and 
Polycarp,  who  were  ecpially  companions  of  the  same 
Apostles,  to  be  of  no  authority  at  all/  "  The  Rev. 
J.  Martineau,  in  his  "  RatioiKde  of  Religious  En- 
(piiry."  observes, — "If  we  could  recover  the  gospels 
of  the  Ih^brews,  and  that  oi  the  Egyptians,  it  would 
beditiicdlt  to  give  a  reason  why  thkv  should  not  lorm 
a  part  of  the  New  Testament;  and  an  epistle  actually 
exists,  by  Clement,  the  fellow-laborer  of  Paul,  which 


THE    NEW     TESTAMENT. 


29 


has  as  good  a  claim  to  stand  there,  as  the  Epistle  to 
the  Hebrews,  or  the  Gospel  of  Luke.  If  none  but 
the  works  of  the  twelve  apostles  were  admitted,  the 
rule  would  be  clear  and  simple,  but  what  are  Mark 
and  Luke,  vj\\o  are  rccdved^  more  than  Clement  and 
Barnal>as.  who  are  excluded T^  And  Archbishop 
Wake  actually  translated  from  the  (h'cck  the  Apos- 
tolic Fathers  of  the  first  century,  viz.,  St.  Barnabas,  St. 
Clement,  St.  Ignatius,  St.  Polycarp,  and  St.  Hermas, 
and  strongly  recommended  them  to  the  Christian 
world  as  "  inspired,"  and  "containing  an  authoritative 
declaration  of  the  (iospel  of  Christ  to  us."  (See 
Wake's  Apostol.  Fathers.)  The  learned  Bishop  Marsh 
positively  avers  tliat,  *'  ft  is  an  undoubted  fact  that 
those  Christians  by  whom  the  now-rejected  gospels 
were  received,  and  who  are  now  called  heretics,  were 
in  the  right  in  many  points  of  criticism,  where  the 
fathers  accused  them  of  wilful  corruption." 

1  now  a])j)roach  a  most  material  portion  of  our 
inquiry.  From  the  era  of  Christ,  until  the  latter  end 
of  the  fourth  century,  there  was  no  authorised  collec- 
tion of  the  writings  of  the  New  Testament.  All  was 
doubt,  and  disjnitc,  for  the  first  300  years,  during  the 
very  time  everything  should  have  been  certain  and 
satisfactory.  If  it  was  all  doubt  1500  years  ago,  can 
it  be  all  certainty  now? 

About  the  middle  of  the  thb^d  century,  however, 
Ori^ren,  the  celebrated  Christian  father, — a  man  who 
had  almost  unlimited  power  in  the  church, — thought 
proper  to  make  a  selection  from  the  great  number  of 
books  then  current  amongst  the  Christians.  The 
selection  included  the  canon  in  circulation  at  this  day. 
Through  the  dominant  infiuence  Origen  possessed  in 
the  church  at  this  period,  his  selection  soon  became 
popular,  and  in  the  year  363  was  declared  by  the 
Council  of  Laodicea,  to  be  the  only  "  genuine  Scrip- 
tures." It  is  more  than  probable,  had  not  Origen 
made  this  selection,  and  possessed  such  supreme  influ- 
ence among  the  Christians  of  his  day,  that  our  present 

3=^ 


30 


HISTORY    OF 


canon  would  have  been  forgotten,  like  many  of  the 
now -rejected  books. 

Is  it  not,  my  friends,  very  extraordinary  that  a 
book  like  the  New  Testament,  claiming  to  be  of 
"divine"  origin,  should  have  remahied  so  long  in  ob- 
scurity, and  at  last  only  saved  from  eternal  oblivion 
through  the  presumption  of  a  cunning  and  despotic 
priest,  and  finally  determined  to  be  genuine  by  the 
mere  dicta  of  a  council  of  priests,  equally  deccitCul 
and  arbitrary  as  himself?  This  simple  fact  is  alone 
sutiicient  to  convince  every  unprejudiced  mind  that 
the  Hible  has  no  more  to  do  with  Deity  than  Gulliver's 
Travels  or  Tom  Thumb. 

An  important  question  here  suggests   itself     How 
did  this  Council  of  Laodicea  decide  that  our  present 
canon  of  the   New  Testament  is   the   true  word  of 
God  I      Did    they    receive    a    special    message    fnm 
heaven  upon  the  subject?     No,  indeed,  but  tfiis  vital 
m^atter  was  decided  solely  by  ro^e— decided  as  your 
Town  Council   might  decide  upon  a  police  lorce,  or 
the  House  of  Commons  upon  a  tariff.     It  mig/tl  have 
happened  the  majority  had  voted  against  our  present 
authorised  version,   and  in  favor  of  some  of  the   re- 
jected  books.     And   what   then  ?     Why,    that  which 
we  ?i(ru^  esteem  the  "  Word  of  God"  would  have  been 
denounced,  as  were  the  repudiated  copies,  "as  mere 
fables  and  lying  narrations,"  and  we  should  nov  have 
been  promulgating  as  the  "  Holy  Word"   that  which 
was  tke?i  declared  to  be  false  and   spurious.     Willumi 
Penn,    the   celebrated   Quaker,    in   arguing    that   the 
Bible  cannot  be  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  says— 
"1  demand  of  our  adversaries  if  they  are  well  assured 
of    those  men  who  first  collected,  embodied,  and   de- 
clared them  (the  Scriptures)    authentic,  by  a   public 
canon  which  we  read  was  in  the  Council  of  L.aodicea 
held  360  years  after  Christ,"— "J   say.  how  do  they 
knoiD   that   these   inen   rightly   discerned    true  from 
spurious  ?      Now,  sure  it  is,  that  some  of  the  Scrip^ 
tures  taken  in  by  one  council,  were  rejected  by  another 


THE   NEW    TESTAMENT. 


31 


/or  apocryphal,  and  that  which  was  left  out  by  the 
former  for  apocryphal,  was  taken  in  by  the  latter  for 
canonical.  Now,  visible  it  is,  that  they  contradict 
each  other,  and  as  true  that  they  hath  erred  respect- 
ing the  present  belief"  (Penn's  Works,  vol.  1,  p. 
302,  303,  304,  London,  1782.) 

It  is  manifest,  my  friends,  the  whole  matter  rests 
merely  on  huniau  dicta^  and  not  divine  interposition^ 
and  tlierefore  the  pretensions  of  the  Christian  world 
to  the  divinity  of  their  "Sacred"  oracle,  are  alike 
tuitous  and  absurd. 

Presuming,  however,  this  was  a  legitimate  mode  of 
determining  the  divinity  of  Scripture,  a  further  ques- 
tion has  to  be  considered,  whether  the  men  who 
composed  these  councils  were  competent  to  decide 
such  critical  matters?  We  must  be  assured  they  were 
enlightened  and  unprejudiced,  and  disposed  to  discuss 
the  subject  dispassionately.  We  must  be  certain  they 
examined,  minutely  and  deliberately^  all  the  evidence, 
pro  et  con^  in  reference  to  the  different  Gospels,  Acts, 
Epistles,  and  Revelations,  claiming  to  be  genuine 
Scripture.  For  if  they  were  not  persons  of  this  high 
character,  acting  in  the  enlightened  spirit  proposed, 
710  confidence  can  be  placed  in  their  decisions.  They 
would  be  calculated  only  to  mislead, — to  confoiuid 
rather  than  to  settle  the  controvesy. 

Now  I  aver  most  fearlessly  that  they  were  not  men 
so  distinguished  and  estimable.  They  were,  on  the 
contrary,  excessively  bigoted,  prejudiced,  and  credu- 
lous—  indissolubly  wedded  to  their  own  crotchets. 
Their  conduct,  indeed,  m  those  "  holy  councils," 
would  have  disgraced  a  pot-house. 

My  friends,  these  are  bold  assertions,  and  require 
very  distinct  proof  I  will  at  once  adduce  it.  I  shall 
first  quote  from  an  eye  witness,  upon  the  authority  of 
the  Christian  writer,  Tindal,  in  the  195th  page  of  his 
work,  entitled,  "Rights  of  the  Christian  Church." 
"St.  Gregory  Nazianzen"  says  he,  "in  his  letter  to 
Procopius,  tells  him  ^  That  he  fled  all  assemblies  of 


32 


HISTORY    OF 


bishops,  because  he  never  saw  a  good  and  happy  end 
of  any  council,  but  that  they  did  rather  increase  than 
lessen  the  evil,  that  the  love  of  contention  and  ambi- 
tion always  overcomes  their  reason  /  /  / '  "  Pretty  men 
to  determine  questions  of  such  vital  moment ! 

But  listen  further  to  the  words  of  the  pious  Nazian- 
zen.  He  reiterates  his  determination  of  never  gomg  to 
any  council,  '•  because  nothin<^  is  to  be  heard  there  but 
geese  and  cranes!  who  fight  without  understanding 
one  another."  An  unif[ue,  pious,  and  rational  assem- 
bly this,  truly !  How  characteristic  of  the  priestly 
system  !  We  are  here  informed  by  one  who  was 
2)resent  at  these  councils,  that  there  was  notlhng  to  be 
heard  but  '•''geese  and  cranes^^^  and  it  is  upon  the  de- 
cisions of  animals  like  these,  that  the  authenticity 
and  genuineness  of  our  Bible  rests.  O,  Christians  ! 
when  will  you  be  ashamed  of  your  crcduhty  .^  Little 
do  these  "  geese  and  cranes  "  know  the  deference  you 
pay  to  their  rational  and  odightened  dicta  ! 

Listen  again  if  you  please,  to  the  opinions  of  Tin- 
dal,  as  to  the  character  of  these  ''  pious  "  assemblies. 
Alluding,  in  particular,  to  the  memorable  Council  of 
Nice,  held  in  the  year  327,  at  which  the  Emperor 
Constantlne  presided,  he  observes  : — '^  And  if  these 
accusations  and  libels  which  the  bishops  at  the  Coun- 
cil of  Nice  give  in  of  one  another  to  the  Kinperor, 
were  now  extant,  in  all  probability,  we  should  have 
such  rolls  of  scandal^  that  few  would  have  much  rea- 
son to  boast  of  the  first  Gilcumenical  council,  where, 
with  such  heat,  passion,  and  fury,  the  Bishops  fell 
fold  on  one  another^  insomuch,  that  had  not  the  Em- 
peror by  a  trick  burnt  their  Church  memorials,  pro- 
bably tliey  must  have  broke  up  in  confusion !  After 
that  Council  was  over,  the  Bishops  made  so  great  a 
bustle  and  disturbance^  and  were  so  unruly,  that  the 
g(wd  Emperor  was  forced  to  tell  them  "  that  if  they 
would  not  be  more  quiet  and  peaceable  for  the  future, 
he  would  no  longer  continue  his  expedition  against 
the  Infidels,  but  must  return  to  keep  them  in  order." 


THE   NEW    TESTAMENT. 


33 


*'  Indeed,"  says  Tindal.  "  the  confusion  and  disorder 
were  so  great  amongst  them,  especially  in  their  *Sy- 
tiods^  that  it  sometimes  came  to  bloivs  ;  as  for  instance, 
Dioscorus,  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  cuffed  and  kicked 
Flavianus,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  (at  the  sec- 
ond Synod  of  Ephesus)  with  that  fury  that  within 
Ihree  days  after  he  died  I  V  Oh!  what  Christians, 
and  Christian  Bishops,  too ! — the  men  upon  whose 
judgment  the  Christian  world  depend  for  their  creeds 
and  their  Scriptures  !     What  a  mockery  ! 

But,  my  friends,  listen  still  further.  You  have 
heard  of  their  bigotry  and  violence.  A  word  as  to 
their  honesty  and  consistency.  Tindal,  speaking  of 
this  subject,  observes,  "for  though  they  were  most 
obstinate  as  to  power,  they  were  most  flexible  as  to 
faith,  and  in  their  councils  complimented  the  Emper- 
or with  whatsoever  creeds  they  had  a  mind  to,  and 
never  scrupled  to  recant  what  they  had  before  enacted, 
or  to  re-enact  what  they  had  before  recanted.  Nay, 
so  very  variable  were  they  that  St.  Hilary,  Bishop  of 
Poictiers,  says  that  ^  since  the  Nice?ie  Synod,  we  do 
nothing  but  write  creeds;  that  while  we ^^A^  about 
words ;  while  we  raise  questions  about  novelties ; 
while  we  quarrel  about  things  doubtful,  and  about 
authors,  while  we  contend  in  parties,  there  is  almost 
none  that  is  Christ's.  We  decree  every  year  of  the 
Lord  a  new  creed  concerning  God ,  nay,  every  change 
of  the  moon  our  faith  is  altered."'  Flexible  gentle- 
men, indeed!  Tliey  remind  me  of  the  words  of 
Byron  : — 

"  The  moment  you  had  pronounced  him  one, 
Presto !  his  face  changed  and  he  was  another, 
And  when  that  change  was  hardly  well  put  on, 
It  varied,  till  I  don't  tlinik  his  own  mother,' 

ill"  that  he  had  a  mother)  would  her  son 
iave  known,  he  shifted  so  from  one  to  t'othor.'' 

The  following  fact,  mentioned  by  Pappius  in  his 
"Synodicum  of  the  Council  of  Nice"  is,  however, 
worth  all  the  preceding,  valuable  and  curious   though 


34 


HISTORY   OF 


they  be.  Pappiiis  informs  us  of  the  manner  in  which 
the  true  Gospels  were  selected  from  the  false  at  that 
mernorable  Council.  This  was  done,  says  he,  *'  bij 
placing  all  the  books  under  a  cornmnnion  table^  and, 
upon  the  prayers  of  the  council,  the  inspired  books 
jumped  upon  the  tabid  while  the  false  ones  remained 
under  !  !  '^  What  a  test  of  truth  I  What  a  proof  of 
inspiration!  It  is  quite  a  stirring  argument.  Who, 
after  this,  will  venture  to  doubt  the  authenticity  of 
the  Scriptures? 

From  St.  Cyril's  Letters  we  learn  that  when  the 
people  of  Hphesus  were  informed  tliat  the  Fathers  of 
the  council  had  declared  they  might  call  the  *'  Virgin 
Mary"  the  •'  Mother  of  God,"  they  were  transported 
with  joy  ;  they  kissed  the  hands  of  the  bishops — they 
embraced  their  knees,  and  the  whole  city  resounded 
with  acclamations.  Happy  creatures!  After  this, 
surely  no  one  will  doubt  that  ''ignorance  is  bliss." 

Enough,  however,  of  these  councils,  their  squabbles 
and  their  freaks.  It  must  be  evident  to  all  of  you, 
they  cannot  be  relied  upon  by  any  one  possessing  or- 
dinary intelligence,  and  if  these  councils  are  not  to  be 
depended  upon,  we  have  no  means  of  ascertaining 
which  of  the  immense  imrnher  of  Gospels,  Acts,  Epis- 
tles, and  Revelations,  are  really  genuine,  or  if  any  are 
so.  All  is  confusion,  doubt,  and  uncertainty !  A 
curious  state  of  things  when  the  book  is  said  to  be  of 
divine  origin. 

We  must  now  hasten  to  the  conclusion  of  our  histo- 
ry.—After  the  Council  of  Laodicea,  in  the  year  363, 
there  were  two  other  great  councils,  one  in  the  year 
40(),  and  the  other  in  680.  The  council  of  406  re- 
jected several  books  deemed  canonical  by  the  council 
of  363,  but  the  council  of  680  again  restored  them 
to  the  canon.  Thus  were  the  "Sacred  Writings  "  the 
•'  Word  of  God"  tossed  like  a  battledoor,  from  sect  to 
sect,  and  altered  as  the  spirit  of  faction  might  dictate. 

From  this  period  (close  of  the  7th  century)  to  the 
15th,  when  printing  was  invented,  the  "word  of  God  " 


THE   NEW   TESTAMENT. 


35 


remained  in  pious  seclusion.  It  was  locked  up  in 
Monasteries  in  the  exclusive  possession  of  Monks. — 
llie  people  were  forbidden  to  read  it.  If  they  were 
detected  in  such  an  "  impious  "  act,  they  were  pun- 
ished most  severely.  The  priesthood  at  this  period, 
therefore,  had  every  opportunity  to  do  what  they  liked 
with  the  Bible — to  alter,  add,  or  omit,  just  as  it  was 
most  convenient.  So  greatly  in  fact  were  the  priest- 
hood afraid  of  the  people  reading  the  Bible  that  a  Bill 
was  actually  introduced  into  Parliament  to  prohibit 
any  one  reading  the  Scriptures  except  those  who  were 
authorized. 

When  printing  became  general,  the  Bible,  despite 
the  anxiety  of  the  clergy,  was  more  accessible  to  the 
laity  ;  and  what  was  the  consequence  ?  Did  it  decide 
the  grand  question  which  of  these  numerous  Scrip- 
tures were  genuine?  By  no  means.  It  only  enhanced 
the  doubt  and  confusion  which  previously  existed.  It 
split  up  the  European  World  into  numberless  petty 
sectaries,  all  of  which  very  politely  promised  each 
other  eternal  damnation.  Up  to  this  moment  there 
are  no  two  of  the  leading  sects  of  Christendom  who 
entirely  agree  upon  any  one  of  the  versions  or  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  or  even  of  the  Old.  Luther 
himself  rejected  the  Epistle  of  James.  And  Erasmus 
and  Calvin  doubted  of  the  Revelations.  The  Unita- 
rians, headed  by  the  Rev.  N.  Lardner,  regard  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  Epistle  of  James,  the  2nd  of 
Peter,  the  2nd  and  3rd  of  John,  Jude,  and  Revela- 
tions as  doubtful,  and,  as  they  express  it,  not  ^'Jit  "  to 
be  alleged  as  alfording  sufficient  proof  of  afiij  doctrine. 

The  New  Testament  published  by  the  learned 
Evanson  in  1807,  contains  only  the  Gospel  of  St. 
Luke,  Acts,  ten  of  Paul's  Epistles,  and  Revelations, 
and  even  those  are  said  to  "  abound  with  manifest 
and  numerous  interpolations."  The  Gospel  of  Mat- 
thew, Mark,  and  .Tohn,  he  cojitemptuously  rejects  as 
"  spurious  fictions  of  the  second  century." 

The  Swedenborgians  admit  only  the  four  Gospels 
and  Revelations.     The  German  Baptists,  and  the  fol- 


36 


HISTORY   OP 


lowers  of  Servetus,  do  not  receive  the  Gospel  of  St. 
Matthew,  and  the  learned  Professor  Bauer  in  1803 
denounced  it  as  an  absolute  "  forgery."  The  2nd 
Epistle  to  Timothy,  and  Titus,  were  rejected  by  Dr. 
Eichorn,  and  the  1st  Epistle  to  Timothy  in  1807  by 
-Dr.  Scholiermachcr,  the  celebrated  German.  The 
Gospel  of  St.  John  was  rejected  in  1820  by  Dr.  Bret- 
schneider,  and  the  1st  Chapter  of  Matthew  and  Luke 
are  denounced  by  the  Unitarians  in  the  Monthly  Re- 
pository as  '' absolute  falsities  ! ''  The  Catholic  Bible, 
say  the  Protestants,  abounds  with  innumerable  gross 
errors,  and  in  a  great  number  of  places,  exhibits  the 
most  shocking  barbarity  of  style,  and  the  most  impen- 
etrable obscurity  with  res])ect  to  the  sense  of  the 
inspired  writers.  Yet  this  Bible  was  pronounced  au- 
thentic by  a  decree  of  the  Council  of  Trent. 

The  Protestant  Bible  in  return  is  denounced,  even 
so  lately  as  1816,  by  the  Pope  of  Rome,  as  "pregnant 
with  errors;"  and  the  old  Protestant  Bi])le  is  re'pudi- 
ated  by  the  critic  Bi-oughton,  who  was  himself  a  Pro- 
testant, as  "  perverting  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament 
m  848  j)laces,  and  causing  millions  to  reject  the  New, 
and  to  run  into  everlastinor  flames  !  "  As  for  the 
present  version,  "its  translators,"  say  the  learned 
Cathohcs,  "ought  to  be  abhorred  to  the  depths  of 
hell. 

We  exposed  in  our  last  lecture  many  blunders  and 
folse  translations  which  had  been  made  in  the  Old 
Testament.  Had  I  time  I  could  j)oint  out  similar 
ones  in  the  New.  For  instance,  a  ludicrous  case  of 
false  ti-anslation  aj.peai-s  in  Mark  10,  c.  25,  wliere, 
according  to  the  learned,  the  word  in  the  original 
means  a  cable  rope,  not  a  camel.  In  the  notion^of  a 
cable  going  tlirough  the  eye  of  a  needle,  an  association 
of  ideas  is  preserved,  but  the  other  meaning  is  forced 
and  ridiculous.  Calmet,  the  fimous  Bible  "critic,  de- 
clares that  the  7th  and  8th  verses  of  the  5th  c.  of 
John's  1st  Epistle,  "are  not  in  any  ancient  Bible."  — 
Ihis  interpolation  was  an  impudent  stroke  to  support 
the  trinity.     Cappellus  informs  us  that  he  was  thirty- 


THE   NEW    TESTAMENT. 


37 


six  years  in  writing  the  books  in  which  he  detects  the 
numerous  errors  and  frauds  of  the  Protestant  Bible. 
Tliat  learned  English  Divine,  Dr.  John  Mill,  assures 
US  that  thirty  years'  researches  upon  the  New  Testa- 
ment, aU)ne  enabled  him  to  detect  the  enormous  num- 
ber of  80,000  dilicrent  rcadhigs  of  that  book.  Could 
anything  match  the  stupidity  and  monstrous  credulity 
of  calhng  such  a  work  inspired  and  iufalUble?  It 
appears  that  even  the  favorite  maxim  of  Christians, 
"thou  sliait  love  thy  neighbor  as  thyself,"  has  been 
considered  by  some  learned  writers  to  be  an  interpo- 
lation. Tlie  great  Clirisuan  father,  Origen,  in  his 
commentary  on  Mattlicw's  Gospel,  speaking  of  this 
sentence  is  forced  to  admit  that  "  If  indeed,  there  was 
no  disagreement  in  other  copies,  it  would  be  irreligious 
to  suspect  that  expression  was  interpolatedj  and  not 
pronounced  by  our  Saviour.  But  now,  alas  !  what 
with  the  blunders  of  transcribers — what  with  the  im- 
pious temerity  of  correcting  the  text— what  with  the 
licentiousness  of  others,  who  interpolate  or  expunge, 
just  what  they  please,  it  is  plain  the  copies  do  strange- 
ly disagree.^^ 

Nay.^  my  friends,  it  has  actually  been  proved  by  a 
record  in  the  Cronicon  of  Muis,  that  a  general  altera- 
tion of  the  four  Gospels  took  place  in  the  Gtli  century, 
by  order  of  the  Emperor  Anastatius,  who  decreed : — 
"That  the  Holy  Gospels,  as  written,  Idiotis  Evangel- 
istis,  are  to  be  corrected  and  amended.'^  This  fact  is 
mentioned  by  Scaliger,  and  Dr.  Mill  vouches  for  the 
truth  of  the  record,  and  says  that  Messala  was  Consul 
at  the  time.  Well  might  the  New  Testament  be  com- 
pared to  Lord  Chancellor  Eldon's  silk  stocking,  that 
was  darned  all  over  with  worsted,  until  there  was  no 
silk  remaining ;  so.  in  like  manner,  it  is  now  impossi- 
ble to  say,  Willi  certahity,  what  this  book  was  origin- 
ally, by  whom,  where,  or  when,  its  component  parts 
were  written,  or  how  many  alterations,  additions, 
contradictory  translations,  and  forged  interpolations, 
which,  from  time  to  time,  it  has  undergone. 

4 


38 


HISTORY    OF 


I  shall  sum  up  with  the  following  startling  observa- 
tion of  the  distinguished  Christian,  Le  Clerc.  He 
curiously  observes,  in  his  "  Disquisition  on  Inspira- 
tion," p.  27, — "There  is  no  heresy  in  rejecting  a  book 
of  tlio  Jewish  canon,  as  neither  is  it  to  reject  one  of 
our  own;  at  least,  the  Protestants  have  not  called 
liUther  a  heretic  for  saying  that  the  Epistle  of  James 
is  an  Epistle  of  straw,  no  more  than  they  have  many 
of  the  learned  for  not  receiving  the  Second  Epistle  oY 
Peter,  which  a  famous  critic  (James  Scaliger)  styles 
'  a  fiction  of  some  ancient  Christian  misemploying  his 
leisure  time.'  The  Jewish  Sanhedrim  may  easily 
liave  received  into  their  canon  books  that  had  no  di- 
vine authority  y 

Here  we  are  told  that  it  is  no  heresy   to  doubt   any 
of  the  sacred   writings,  and  that  the  Jews  mav   have 
easily  received  into  the  Old  Testament  books'  whicli 
are  not  of  divine  origin.      Strange  production  to   be 
the  word  of  (iod,  any  portion  of  which  you  may   re- 
pudiate with  impunity,  and  any  part  of  which  may 
not  be  of  divine  origin  !    And  we  are  still  called  upon, 
in   tins,    the  boasted   age  of  science  and   inquiry,    to 
acknowledge  such  a  book  as  divine.     Oh  !  when  will 
the  intellectual  and  thinking  of  our  race  cease  to  con- 
nive at  such  absurdity  /      When  will  man  throw   off 
his  mental  leading  strings,  and  act  as  a  man  7     Will 
he  never  rise  above  his  intellectual  babyhood  ?     Will 
he  always  adhere  to  tlie  falsehoods,  fancies,  and  delu- 
sions, accredited  by  his  infantile  credulity?     Truth 
and  humanity  forbid  it !     Oh  !  when,  then,  will   this 
change  take  place?     W^hen  !  my  friends  7  when  men 
dare  be  honest— when  they  dare  '' keep  a  conscience'' 
when  they  dare  seize  upon  the  precious  jewel  of  truth 
wherever  it  is  to  be  found,  despite  the  anathemas  of 
priests,   and   the  sneers,  insults,   and  persecutions  of 
bigots.     And  may   that  day  soon  arrive.      May  the 
time  not  be  far  distant,  when  the  sacred  halo  of  reason 
and  goodness  will  encircle  tiie  minds  and  the  hearts 
of  men  ! 


LECTURE  THIRD. 


CHARACTER  OF  THK 


CHRISTIAN  FATHERS  AND  APOSTLES. 


Friends — 

In  our  two  preceding  discourses,  I  furnished   you 
with   a  compendious  history  of  the   Bible  from   the 
earliest  times  on  record,  to  the  present  age.     In  devel- 
oping that  history  I  had  occasion   to  lay  before  you 
facts  of  the  most  curious   and  extraordinary  kind — 
facts  resting  upon  the  authority  of   Christians  them- 
selves— facts  which  must  convince  every  enlightened 
and  unprejudiced   mind   that  the   pretensions  of  the 
Christian  world  touching  the  Divinity  of  this  notori- 
ous book  are  perfectly  unwarrantable  and  absurd.     I 
deemed  it  necessary  to  supply  you  with  this  history 
in  order  that  all  parties   may  be  enabled  to  take  an 
accurate,  comprehensive,  and,  therefore,  just  view  of 
this  great  and  important  question.     It  has  too  often, 
unfortunately,  been  the  practice  of  Biblical  disputants 
to  confine  themselves  to   a  very  limited  and  narrow 
consideration  of  this  vast  subject — to  the  possibility 
of  some  ridiculous  miracle,   the   fulfillment  of  some 
foolish  prophecy,  the  testimony  of  some  obsolete  his- 
torian, or  the  freaks  of  some  fanatical,  impudent,  and 
cunning  priest.     To  obviate  this  mistake,  however,  I 
am  endeavoring,  in  the  first  instance,  to  familiarise 
you  with  the  general  bearings  of  this  extensive  topic. 
On  this  occasion,  it  is  our  intention  to  expatiate 
upon  a. portion  of  our  inquiry  which  is  intimately  and 


40 


CHARACTER  OF  THE 


inseparably  connected  with  tlie  history  of  the  Bible. 
In  fact,  it  may  be  considered  part  and  parcel  of  tlie 
snbject.  1  allnde  to  the  character  and  doings  of  those 
individnals  in  whose  hands  the  Scriptnres'originally 
reposed,  particnlarly  dnruig  the  first  fonr  centnries  of 
the  Christian  era,  when  no  anthorised  canon  or  col- 
lection of  the  books  of  the  New  Testament  was 
established. 

My  remarks  at  this  moment  will  more  especially 
apply  to  this  portion  of  "  the  Divine  Word,"  as  1 
have  already  parthj  anticipated  this  snbject,  in  rela- 
tion to  the  (Jld  Testament,  in  my  first  address.  The 
parties  to  whom  I  shall,  in  the  first  i)lace,  more  par- 
ticularly allude,  are,  the  Apostolic  and  other  Christian 
fathers. 

It  is  a  matter  of  the  vttnost  moment  to  ascertain  if 
those  men  were  honorable,  iuirennons,  and  consistent. 
We  must  iiKjuire  if  they  were  persons  upon  whom  an 
honest  and  conscientious  man  can  place  reliance  ;  for 
if  It  can  be  shown  they  were  not  individnals  of  this 
character,  the  grand  corner-stone  of  Christian  evi- 
dence is  undermined.  You  must  remember  that  it  is 
upon  the  authority  of  these  "  Holy  Fathers  "  we  are 
called  upon  to  believe  the  Scriptures  genuine.  If, 
therefore,  it  can  be  demonstrated  that  tlieir  authority 
is  exceptionable,  we  at  once  overturn  the  very  foun- 
dation of  the  argument. 

It  is  necessary  1  should  here  inform  you,  in  order 
to  explain  how  much  depends  npon  the  veracity  of 
these  holy  flithers,  that  the  originals  of  the  New 
Testament  are  irrecoverably  and  absolntcly  lost.  We 
find,  on  referring  to  the  Introduction  to  the  New  Tes- 
tament, by  Michaelis,  the  famous  German  Professor, 
as  translated  by  Bishop  Marsh,  that  the  most  ancient 
MSS.  of  this  portion  of  the  "Word  of  God"  were 
writen  so  lately  as  the  Gth  century,— Uiat  is,  nearly 
500  years  after  the  time  ihe  originals  are  said  to  have 
been  composed !  The  originals  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, indeed,  have  not  been  seen,  says  Michaelis,  by 


CHRISTIAN    FATHERS    AND    APOSTLES. 


41 


any  writer  extant,  nor  do  they  record  that  any  one  of 
their  contemporaries  had  seen  them.  The  ''holy 
fathers  "  themselves  do  not  profess  to  have  seen  the 
originals.  Professor  Michaehs  further  observes,  •''  None 
of  the  most  early  fathers,  as  Ignatius  or  Tertullian, 
appeal  to  the  originals,  or'had  seen  them;'-  and  Pro- 
fessor Du  Pin,  in  his  -'History  of  the  Canon,"  ♦fcc, 
remarks — "  We  do  not  find  that  the  two  greatest  men 
of  the  church,  I  mean  Origen  and  St.  Hierom,  who 
had  searched  the  ancient  copies  of  the  Scriptures  with 
so  much  care  and  diligence,  and  have  visited  so  many 
churches  in  the  east,  have  ever  spoken  of  the  origi- 
nals of  the  New  Testament,  written  with  the  hands 
of  the  Apostles,  which  they  would  not  have  failed  to 
do  if  tliere  had  been  any  in  dieir  times."  Again,  he 
observes,  "  But  it  hath  been  already  made  to  appear 
elsewhere  that  it  is  no  wonder  that  die  primitive 
Christians,  who  had  not  a  rcguhir  body  of  a  state  in 
which  they  lived,  and  whose  assemblies  were,  on  the 
contrary,  furiously  disturbed  by  die  Jews  and  Pa- 
gans, had  LOST  the  originals  of  their  books  I  — 
"Nay,"  says  he,  ''in  the  primitive  ages,  there  was 
no  talk  of  reading  the  Holy  Scriptures  in  their  origi- 
nals ;  any  copy  whatever,  provided  it  were  used  in  the 
ordiodox  churches,  might  be  relied  upon,  as  if  it  had 
been  the  first  original,  written  widi  the  hands  of  the 
apostles"  !  The  llev.  Dr.  Campbell,  in  his  work  on 
the  Four  Gospels,  page  117,  also  observes, — "  The 
autographs,  (tlie  originals,)  it  is  acknowledged  on  all 
hands,  are  nowhere  to  be  fonnd.  What  we  have  in 
their  stead  are  the  copies  of  copies,  (Uirough  how 
many  successors  it  is  impossible  to  say)  which  were 
originally  taken  from  these  autographs."  Rev.  Dr. 
Hirg,  in  his  Introduction  to  die  New  Testament,  goes 
further,  however,  than  Michaelis  or  Campbell.  He  act- 
ually affirms  that,  "  It  is  probable  there  could  have 
been  no  autographs  of  the  New  Testament  at  all." 

Since,  then,  the  originals  of  the  New  Testament  are 
absolutely  lost,  and,  according  to  Michaelis  and  Du 

4* 


42 


THE    CHARACTER    OF    THE 


CHRISTIAN    FATHERS    AND    APOSTLES. 


43 


Pin  have  not  been  seen  by  any  writer  extant,  or  any 
ot  their  cotemporaries,  it  is  manifest  ^ve  have  nothins' 
to  depend  upon  but  the  copies  these  holy  men  have  prt 
sented  to  us.  I  repeat,  therefore,  it  is  a  question  of 
vital  importance— Me  question,  indeed,  to  ascertain  if 
tliese  men  arc  worthy  of  credit. 

Now  I   unhesitatingly  denounce  them  as  persons 
unworthy  of  belief,  whose  testimony,  at  this  period 
would  not  be  received  in  any  court  of  law  in  Christ- 
endom upon  the  most  frivolous  case  imaginable      De- 
liberately do  I  aver  that  imposture  and  deception  was 
their  common  practice.     They  esteemed  dissimulation 
and   falsehood  as  excellencies,  and  not  as   vices-—^^ 
excellencies  to  be  imitated,~uoi  as  vices  to  be  despised 
lo    (leceiyc    the   people,    they  considered    a  positive 
virtne.     >,ot  only  did  they  think  such  infamous  prac- 
tices necessary  to  the  success  of  reli^non  !  but  actuallv 
honorable  to  it.     In  short,  if  there  were  at  any  time 
one  body  of  men,  as  public  teachers,  more  deceitful 
dishonest,  and  despicable  than  another,  they  were  the 
class  of  whom  I  am  now  speaking,— the  class  upon 
whom   the   Christian  world  depend  foi    the  genuine- 
ness of  their  Scriptures. 

This,  my  friends,  may  be  considered  a  rash  decla- 
ration.    Let  those,  however,  who  labor  under  such  a 
conception,  hsten   to    my  proof     I  shall   first    (luote 
Irom  the  most  able  ecclesiastical  historian  of  modern 
times— the    German    Historian    and    Professor     Mo- 
shcim      In  his  Ecclesiastical  History,  part  2nd,' chap. 
Jrd,   he    makes    use  of  the    following   extraordinaiv 
language  :— '^  The  interest  of  virtue  and  true  religion 
suftered  yet  more  grievously  by  the  monstrous  errors 
that  were  almost  universally  adopted  in  this  century 
Cthe    fourth)   and    became  a  source  of  innumerable 
calamities  and  mischiefs  in  the  succeeding  ao-es.    The 
first  of  these  maxims  was,    '  that  it  tvas  an  act  of  vir- 
tue  to    DECEIVE    AND    LIE,    whcu   by   that   nicaus   the 
mterestoi   the  church  might  be  promoted;'  and  the 
second,  equally  horrible,  though  in  another  point  of 


view,  was. 


that  errors  in  religion,  when  maintained 
and  adhered  to  after  proper  admonition,  were  punish- 
able with  civil  penalties  and  corporeal  tortures.'  The 
former  of  these  erroneous  maxims  was  now  of  long 
standing !  it  had  been  adopted  for  some  ages  past, 
and  had  produced  an  incredible  number  of  ridiculous 
fables,  fictitious  prodigies,  and  pious  frauds  !  to  the 
unspeakable  detriment  of  that  glorious  cause  in  which 
they  were  em])loyed.  And  it  must  be  frauJdy  con- 
fessed, that  the  greatest  men  and  most  eminent  saints 
of  this  centmy  were  more  or  less  tainted  with  the 
infection  of  this  corrupt  principle,  as  will  appear 
evident  to  such  as  look,  with  an  attentive  eye,  to  their 
writings  and  actions.  We  would  willingly  except 
from  this  charge  Ambrose  and  Hiliary,  Augustine, 
Gregory,  Nazianzen,  and  Jerome;  but  truth,  which  is 
more  respectable  than  these  venerable  fathers,  obliges 
us  to  involve  them  in  the  general  accusation."  He 
further  observes,  as  translated  by  Vidal, — "At  a  time 
when  he  (Hennas)  wrote,  it  was  an  established  max- 
im with  many  of  the  Christians  to  avail  themselves 
of  fraud  and  deception,  if  it  was  likely  they  would 
conduce  towards  the  attainment  of  any  considerable 
good.^^  "And  it  was  considered,"  says  he,  again, 
"  that  they  who  made  it  their  business  to  deceive, 
with  a  view  of  promoting  the  cause  of  truth,  were 
deserving  rather  of  commendation  than  censure !!  ^^ 
Honorable  men  !  Exemplary  Christians  !  Holy 
Fathers  ! 

Listen  to  the  French  Protestant,  Casaubon : — "  It 
mightily  aflects  me  to  see  how  many  there  were  in 
the  earliest  times  of  the  church  who  considered  it  a 
capital  exploit  to  lend  to  heavenly  truth  the  help  of 
their  own  inventions  in  order  that  the  new  doctrine 
might  be  received  by  the  wise  among  the  Gentiles. 
These  oflicious  lies,  they  said,  were  devised  for  a 
good  end."  Le  Clerc,  assenting  to  the  opinions  of 
Casaubon,  observes,  "That  dissemblers  of  truth  are 
no  where  to  be  met  with  in  such  abundance  as  among 
the  writers  of  church  history." 


44 


CHARACTER  OF  THE 


Simon,  in  his  Critical  History,  vol.  1,  page  20,  also 
remarks  that  "  \Vc  onght  not  easily  to  give  credit  to 
the  first  originals  of  churches,  (meaning  the  fathers,) 
every  one  strives  to  advance  their  antiquity  as  much 
as  possible,  and  they  make  no  scru})le  on  such  occa- 
sions to  counterfeit  acts  when  they  have  none  that 
are  true." 

Dr.  Conyers  Middlcton,  a  distinguished  Professor 
at  Cambridae,  in  his  able  work  entitled  "A  Free  Kn- 
qniry  into  the  Miraculous  Powers  of  the  Christian 
( 'hurch  in  the  First  Three  Centuries,"  has  given  a 
most  elaborate  and  unanswerable  expose  of  the  tricks 
of  these  "Fathers  in  God."  I  refer  you  to  the  work 
itself,  as  it  is  easily  to  be  obtained.  M.  Daillc,  a  man 
Avhose  learning  and  impartiality  has  never  been  im- 
y)eached,  in  Ins  celclmUcd  work  on  the  "  Use  of  the 
Fathers,"  plainly  says,  "We  fnid  them  (the  fathers) 
saying  things  which  they  did  n<d  thonsclrcs  belicce. 
They  are  mutually  witnesses  agnhist  cdch  other^  that 
they  arc  not  to  be  believed  absolutely  on  their  <m'n 
bare  irord.^'  In  book  1,  chap.  G,  he  observes,  upon 
the  authority  of  St.  Jerome, — "  Origen,  Methodius, 
FiUsebius,  Apollinaris,  have  written  largely  against 
Celsus  and  Porphyry.  Do  but  observe  their  manner 
of  arguing,  and  what  slijypcnj  problems  they  used. — 
They  n  Urged  agahist  the  (icntiles //o^  what  tltcy  he- 
livrcd,  but  what  they  thought  necessary.  Jerome 
adds.  1  forbear  mentioning  the  liatin  writers,  as  Tcr- 
tuUian,  Cyprian,  Minutius,  Victorinus,  liactantius, 
Hiliary,  lest  I  should  rather  seem  to  accuse  others, 
than  defend  myself"  Daille  says  the  fathers  "made 
no  scruple  to  Jorge  t'^hole  books  !  "  His  work  on  the 
"  Use  of  the  Fathers,"  was  published  in  l()2S,  and 
translated  by  T.  Smith,  of  Cambridge  ;  the  translation 
from  which  these  extracts  are  taken. 

M.  Blondell,  another  learned  French  Protestant,  in 
his  Fij)istle  to  Arnold,  1701,  states  that  there  was  more 
aversion  to  lying,  more  simplicity  in  adhering  to  truth, 
and  more  fidelity,  among  profane  than  Chriatlan  au- 


CHRISTIAN    FATHERS   AND    APOSTLES. 


45 


thors.     See  also   Scaliger,   Epistle  and  Casaubon.— - 
Bishop    Stillingfleet,    Irenerch,    page,    206.   -Bishop 
Fell,  Cypriani,  page  53.— Dr.  Bennett,  Directions  lor 
Studying  the   Thirty-nine  Articles,  page  GO.— Bishop 
Burnett,   on  the  same,  Article   8,  page   lOG.— Selden, 
Notes  on  Fleta,  chap.  5.— Pezron,  defence  of  his  book, 
L'Antiquite,  des  Tems,  page  224.— Dr.  Jortin's  Re- 
marks on  Ecclesiastical   History.— Dodwelfs   Disser- 
tation  on    Ireneus.  —  Dr.    Chapman,    Miscellaneous 
Tracts,  pages  191,207;  and  Dr.   Priestley,    Disquisi- 
tion on  Matter  and  Spirit,  2nd  edition,  vol.  1,  p.   303, 
Note.     I  could  refer  to  a  host  of  other  authorities,  all 
of  the  hii^hest  character,  showing  the  utter  dishonesty 
and  deception  of  these  "  men  of  ( iod."    The  following, 
liowcver,  must  sullice.     It  is  from  a  periodical  accessi- 
ble to  all.     In  the   Eclectic  Review,  of  1814,  p.    170, 
is  this  passage  : — "  When  we  consider  the  number  of 
gospels,  acts,  epistles,  revelations,  traditions,  and  con- 
stitutions  which   were   put  in   circulation  during  the 
first  three  centuries,    and    which  arc   lUK/afstioitablij 
spurious,  we  find  sulficient  reason  for  examining  with 
carc^  and  receiving  with  extreme  caution,   productions 
attributed  to  eminent  men   in  the  primitive  church. — 
Some  of  the  early  Christians  do  not  appear  to  have 
possessed,  in  some  points,  a  very  nice   sense  of  moral 
oblic^^ation.     The  Avritiug  of  books  under  false  names, 
and'thc  circulating  of  lables,  were  not  accounted  vio- 
lations of  duty,  or  if  the  impropriety  of  such  coiiduct 
was    felt,    the    end   proposed— the   promotion    of   the 
Christian  cause— was   thought   to  justify  the  means 
enii)loycd  for  its  accomplishment."     A  divine  religion, 
truly,    that  could  require,  or  would    ''justify,''   such 
ignoble    and  dishonest    practices)      Oh!   protect   me 
from  such  "  religion  !  " 

We  will  now  speak  of  individual  cases  of  deceit 
and  imposture.  The  preceding  rpiotations  are  only  in 
general  terms.  First,  of  the  lh)ly  Father  Origen. 
This  man  had  immense  uilluence  among  the  Chris- 
tians of  his  time.     He  lived  in  the  third   century.     It 


46 


CIIAKACTER    OF    THE 


was  Origcn  who  collected  our  present  cnnon  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  upon  whose  ipse  dixit  tlie  (onn- 
cil  of  Laodicea  adopted  it  as  the  "  Word  of  God." 
What,  then,  was  the  character  of  this  person,  from 
whom  we  receive  onr  present  Scriptures  7  hisho[) 
Horsley,  in  his  reply  to  Priestly,  states  that  Origen 
"  was  not  incajxible  of  asserting  in  argument  what 
he  bohevcd  not,  and  tliat  a  strict  regard  to  truth  in 
disputation  was  not  one  of  the  virtues  of  his  charac- 
ter." The  Bishop  further  remarks,  "  Time  was  when 
the  practice  of  using  vnjnsiifmhhi  means  to  serve  a 
good  cnusG  was  openly  avowed,  and  Ori<(cii  /unisvlf 
was  atmm<^  its  defciidcrs.^^  A  fine  character  this,  to 
be  one  of  those  upon  whose  •'authority  "  we  receive 
the  Divine  Word  ! 

Now  of  Kusebins,  the  Bishop  of  Coesarea.     Few  of 
the  ancient  fathers  are  more  celebrated  than  this  indi- 
vidual.      He  is  considered  a   very  eminent   authority 
among  (Jhristians.     Tellimont  declares,  in  his    Eccle- 
siastical History,  a  work  of  10  volumes,  that  "  With- 
out Husebius  we  should  scarce  have  had  any  knowl- 
edge of  the   history  of  the  lirst  ages  of  Christianity, 
or  of  the  authors   who  wrote  at   that  time.       All   the 
(»reek  authors  of  the  fourth  century,  who  undertook 
to  write  the  history  of  the  church,  have  began  where 
Kusebius   ended,   as   having   nothing  considerable    to 
add  to  his  labors."    What  is  the  character  of  this  man, 
upon  whom  such  dependence  is  j)laced  7      Why,  it   is 
as  Uononif)lc  as  his  predecessor's.    He  was  one  of  those 
/to/u'st  men  who  thought  falsehood  such  a  convenience 
and  such  a  virtue.     In  the  12th  Book  of  his    "  Evan- 
gelical Preparation,"   he  devotes  a   whole  chapter  to 
proving  that   falsehood  (nii^ht  to  be  used   whenever  it 
is  rcf/uired ;  and  he  heads  the  31st  chapter  with  the 
following  question — ''  How   far  it  may  be  proper  to 
use  falsehood  as  a  'medicine,  and  for  the  benefit  of  those 
who  retpfire  to  lie  deceived''     Strange  medicine,  this  ! 
An  admirable   bolus,  truly,    for  purging  men  of  their 
virtue  and  integrity  !    In  anotlier  place  Eusebius  says 


CHRISTIAN    FATHERS    AND    APOSTLES. 


47 


of  himself—''  I  have  related  whatever  might  redound 
to  the  glory ^  and  I  have  suppressed  all  that  could  tend 
to  tlic  disgrace  of  our  religion." 

I  am  sure  the  Christian  world  ought  to  be  much 
obliged  to  his  Reverence,  though  the  justice  and  hon- 
esty of  his  conduct  is  another  question.  But  wliat 
says  anodicr  Christian  of  the  character  of  this  virtu- 
ous priest  7  Baroiiius,  who  was  a  sincere  advocate 
of  the  Christian  faith,  calls  him  "  die  great  falsifier 
of  Ecclesiastical  History — a  wily  sycophant — a  con- 
summate hypocrite — a  time-serving  persecutor,  who 
had  nothing  in  his  known  life,  or  writings,  to  sup])ort 
the  belief  that  he  himself  believed  in  the  Christian 
system."  So  much  for  tlie  character  of  this  mai?i 
pillar  of  the  church,  without  whom  we  should  know 
nothing  of  the  early  doings  of  the  "  Aiithful." 

Another  eminent  Christian  father  was  Ireneus,  of 
whom  I  spoke  at  length  in  my  last  discourse,  when 
showing  he  was  the  first  who  mentions  the  four  Gos- 
pels. 1  then  quoted  Dr.  Wliitby  where  he  accuses 
him  and  father  Papias  "as  Iiaving  scandalously  de- 
luded the  world  with  fables  and  lyhig  narrations." 

Of  the  celebrated  Justin  Martyr,  Mosheim  distinctly 
says,  that,  "  much  of  what  Justin  says  is  wholly  un- 
deserving of  credit.'''' 

Of  the  fathers  Clement,  Alexandria  and  liactantius, 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Jones,  in  his  "  New  and  Full  Method  of 
Settling  the  Canonical  Autliority  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment," part  2iid,  page  34,  observes  that  it  was  the 
practice  with  them  "  to  make  use  of  testimonies  out 
of  forgeries  and  spiirious  boohs ^  to  prove  the  very 
foundation  of  the  Christian  revelation. 

St.  Jerome,  a  man  who  stands  very  high  among 
the  early  fathers,  and  author  of  the  Vulgate,  or  Latin 
Translation  of  the  Bible, — the  translation  now  adopt- 
ed by  the  Catholics, — very  positively  declares  that — 
"  J  do  not  find  fault  with  an  error  which  proceeds 
from  a  hatred  towards  the  Jews,  and  a  pious  zeal  for 
the  (/hristian  faith."     (Oper.,  torn.  4,  page  li:^.)    Ac- 


48 


CHARACTER    OF    THE 


CHRISTIAN    FATHERS    AND    APOSTLES. 


49 


cording  to  this  honest  priest,  if  it  is  only  for  the  benefit 
of  rel'iirhm^  an  individual  may  utter  as  many  false- 
hoods as  he  tlunks  proper !  The  Bishop  of  Constan- 
tino])le,  Gregory  Nazianzen,  surnamed  the  '•  Divine/' 
candidly  admits  to  father  Jerome,  that  ^'a  little /wi/wM 
is  all  that  is  necessary  to  impose  upon  the  people. — 
The  less  they  comprehend,  the  more  they  admire ! 
Our  forefathers  and  doctors  of  the  church  have  often 
said,  not  what  they  thouglit,  hut  what  circumstances 
and  necessity  dictated  to  them."  Bishop  llcliodorous, 
in  his  Romance  of  Theagncs  and  Charieles,  modestly 
says,  "  a  falsehood  is  a  g<n)d  thing  when  it  aids  the 
speaker,  and  docs  no  injury  to  the  hearers."  And  St. 
Syncsius,  early  iu  the  fifth  century,  declared  tliat 
"  the  people  were  desirous  of  heing  deceived.  We 
cannot  act  otherwise  respecting  them." 

Indeed,  Synesius !  then  what  are  we  to  think  ot 
your  religion,  whose  moral  influence  is  so  weak  and 
hexihle  that  when  people  are  unmoral,  the  only  way  it 
can  adopt  to  reclaim  them,  is  to  make  them  more  im- 
moral /  Truly,  these  are  womhrful  "  saints,"  strange 
*'  amhassadors  of  God  !  "  But  Syncsius  has  not  done. 
He  further  declares,  and,  I  must  say,  very  frankly — 
*'  For  my  own  ])art,  to  myself  I  shall  always  he  a 
])liil()S()pher,  hut  in  dealing  with  the  mass  of  man- 
kind, 1  shall  \)^  ^  priestP  There  is  no  douht  of  it, 
hohj  Synesius  ! 

As  a  specimen  of  the  veracity  of  a  very  popular 
Christian  father,  St.  Augustine,  I  need  hut  state  that 
he  declares,  in  his  33rd  sermon,  and  stakes  his  eternal 
sah-at'ioa  on  the  truth  of  the  "fact,"  which  he  said 
iras  as  true  as  the  gospel,  that  while  he  was  Bishop 
of  Hippo  Regius,  ho  i)rcached  the  gospel  of  our  Lord 
and  Saviour  Jesus  ( 'hrist,  to  a  whole  nation  of  men 
and  women  irho  had  no  heads,  hut  had  their  eyes  in 
their  hosoins  ;  and  in  countries  still  more  southerly, 
lie  preached  to  a  nation  amongst  whom  each  individ- 
ual had  hut  one  eye,  and  that  situate  hi  tlie  middle  of 
tlie  forehead  What  next  I  How  strange  we  can 
lind  none  of  the  progeny  of  this  singular  race  ! 


Now  for  the  case  of  the  apostolic  father  St.  Her- 
mas  one  of  the  fellow- lahorers  of  St.  Paul.  This 
honest  man  wrote  a  gospel,  from  which  the  following 
passage  is  taken.  St.  Hernias  exclaims — "O  Lord,/ 
7iev€r  spake  a  true  word  in  my  life ;  but  I  have  al- 
ways lived  in  dissimulation,  and  affirmed  a  lie  for 
truth  to  all  men,  and  no  man  contradicted  me,  but  all 
gave  credit  to  my  words."  To  which  exclamation 
the  holy  angel  to  whom  Hermas  was  addressing  him- 
self replied,  "As  the  lie  was  up  now,  he  had  better 
keep  it  up,  and,  as  in  time  it  would  come  to  be  be- 
lieved, it  would  answer  as  well  as  truth  .' .'  " 

Such  are  the  men  upon  whose  veracity  the  authen- 
ticity and  genuineness  of  our  Bible  depends  ! 

VVere  1  a  Christian,  1-  should  be  ashamed  to  ac- 
knowledge a  production  with  which  such  characters 
had  any  connexion.  Well  do  I  know  with  what  ex- 
ultation and  contempt  the  Christian  world  would 
denounce  a  book  issued  by  the  Sceptics,  which  rested 
its  evidence  upon  the  testimony  of  such  unblushing 
impostors.  Soon  would  they  exclaim,  with  all  the 
bitter  scorn  so  peculiar  to  them,  "away  with  such  a 
book  !"  "it  is  a  disgrace  to  the  age!  "  "an  insult  to 
religion!  "  "a  libel  upon  God  !  "  And  w^hy  will  they 
not  do  the  same  with  their  own  book,  when  they  lind 
its  evidence  resting  upon  such  infamous  testimony  ? 
O!  but  I  presume  their  hook  is  for  the  "promotion 
of  religion !  "  'IMiat  alters  the  case.  Being  for  a 
"  good  "  object,  such  conduct  is  deserving  rather  "of 
commendation  than  of  censure."  Behig  for  the  "ben- 
efit of  the  church,"  it  is  an  "  act  of  virtue  to  deceive 
and  lie." 

My  friends,  wliile  such  morality  finds  currency 
amongst  mankind,  well  may  falsehood  and  dissimu- 
lation abound.  While  those  are  to  be  found,  who  can 
assert  that  a  book,  resting  its  evidence  upon  the  testi- 
mony of  men  who  deemed  it  a  "  virtue  "  to  indulge 
in  such  vil(3  artifices,  is  "  divine,"  the  "  Word  of 
God,"   the    "revealed    will"  of   an    omniscient   and 

5 


60 


CHARACTER    OF    THE 


munificent  Deity — every  impostor  may  find  }iis  au- 
thority, and  every  rogue  his  ajxjlogy. 

Not  only,  however,  were  the  Christian  fathers  a 
race  of  deceivers  and  impostors,  but  we  learn  from 
Burton's  "  Expositor,"  that  the  practice  of  uiniatural 
crimes  had  been  so  common  among  the  dignitaries  of 
the  church,  that  St.  Bernard,  m  a  sermon  preached 
before  the  clergy,  affirmed  sodomy  to  be  so  connnon 
in  his  time,  that  Ols/io/js  with  bishopa^  lived  in  it.  At 
the  head  of  this  phalanx  of  "  holy  men,"  stood  tlie 
Emperor  Constantine, — a  man  under  whosQ  fosterinir 
care,  Christianity  first  rose  to  power  and  dominion. 
And  who  was  he  7  A  monster  in  human  form.  He 
drowned  his  wife  in  boihng  water ;  put  to  death  his 
son  Crispus  ;  murdered  the  two  husbands  of  his  sis- 
ters, Constantia  and  Anastasia ;  murdered  his  own 
father-in-law,  Maximinian  Hercules,  and  his  nephew, 
son  of  his  sister  Constantia,  a  boy  of  only  twelve 
years  of  age  !  And  this  man  was  the  first  royal  pat- 
ron of  Christianity ! 

This  grand  system  of  dissimulation  and  delusion 
was  not  confined  to  the  Christian  fathers.  The  apos- 
tles themselves,  indulged  in  the  same  pious  freaks. 
Nay,  Christ  himself  was  infected  with  this  corrupt 
principle.  From  the  highest  to  the  lowest,  prevari- 
cation and  deception  seem  to  have  been  their  ^hnodus 
operandi.^'  What  says  the  New  Testament  itself  of 
these  notorious  personages?  We  will  see — I  will 
take  Paul  and  Peter  as  specimens  of  the  Apostles. 
They  were  the  leaders — the  two  men  without  whom 
Christianity  would  have  died  in  its  infancy. 

First,  of  Paul. — In  the  2nd  Corinthians,  c.  12,  v.  16, 
he  says,  "  But  be  it  so,  I  did  not  burden  you,  never- 
theless being  crafty,  I  caught  you  with  guile  : "  and 
in  the  3rd  c.  of  Romans,  v.  7,  he  remarks,  "  For  if 
the  truth  of  God  hath  more  abounded  through  my  lie 
unto  his  glory,  why  yet  am  I  also  judged  as  a  sin- 
ner? "  St.  Jerome,  the  learned  Christian  father,  says 
of  tfiis  Apostle,  in  his  apology, — "  I  will  produce  the 


CHRISTIAN    FATHERS    AND    APOSTLES. 


51 


example  of  this  Apostle  Paul,  whom  I  never    peruse 
without  thinking  that  I  hear  his   thundering    rather 
than   read   his  words.     Consult  his   epistles,  particu- 
larly   to    the    Romans,    Galatians,    and     ifphesians, 
where  lie  disputes  continually.     You  will   see  in  the 
proofs  he  borrows  from  the  Old  Testament,  witli  what 
address,  what  dissimtdation,  he  manages  his  subject 
Let  us  charge  this   ujion  him  as  a  crime,  and  say  to 
him,  the  testimoincs  you  have  used  against  the  Jews 
and  other  heretics,  have   one    signification    in    their 
original,  and  another  in  your  writings.     We  see  here 
examples  forcibly  pressed  into   the  service  wliich   aid 
you  in  gairfing  a  victory,  but  have  no  force  in  the 
books  from  which  you   have  taken   tliem."     In    1st 
Corinthians,  c.  D,  v.  10  to  22,  Paul  admits  of  having 
resorted   to  the  most  wholesale  system  of  deception 
and  hypocrisy.     "  For  though,"  says  he,    ''  I   be   free 
Irom  all  men,  yet  have  J  made  myself  servant   unto 
all   that  I  might  gain  the  more.     And  unto  the  Jews, 
1    became  as  a  Jew,  to  them  that  are   under  the  law 
as  under  the  law,  that  I  might  gain  them  that  are 
under   the   law.     To  them  that  are  without   law,  as 
without   law,    (being  not  without   law   to   God.    but 
under  the  law  to  Christ,)  that  I  might  cr^\u  them  that 
arc  without  law.     To  the  weak,  became  I   as  weak, 
that  I   might  gam   the  weak ;  lam   made  all   things 
to  all  men,  that   I  might   by  all   means  save   some.'' 
Indeed  !  mighty  honest,  truly  !     In  Acts,  9,  there  is  a 
ong  and  particular  account  of  Paul's  visit  to  Jerusa- 
lem,  and   his    stay  among    the   disciples;    while   in 
Galatians,  c.    1,   v.   17,   he  solemnly  swears  that  he 
did  not  go!     In  the  account  of  liis  conversion,   as 
given  in  Acts,   c.  22,   v.   9,   Paul  says,  the  men  who 
were    with    him,   heard   not    the  voice  of  him   who 
spiike  to  him,  while  in  c.  9,  v.  7,  lie  says  they  did.   In 
c.  2.^,  V.  3,  he  abuses  the   High  Priest  for  sitting  in 
judgment  over   him,  while   in  v.  5.  (only   two  verses 
alter  wards,)  lie  pretends  not  to  hnmc  him.     In  c.  22, 
V.  27,  lie  says,   he  is  a  Roman,  but  in  c.  23,  v.  6,' 


52 


CHARACTER    OF    THE 


he  declares  he  is  a  Pharisee,  as  his  parents  before 
him  !  Such  was  honest  Paul.  Now  for  honest  Peter. 
In  Luke,  c.  22,  v.  54  to  58,  I  fiud  tliis  virtuous  man 
solemnly  dcnynig  all  connexion  with  the  "  divme '' 
personage  of  whom-  he  was  the  senior  apostle,  and 
with  whom  he  had  been  in  company  only  a  short 
time  before  !  The  passage  runs—"  Then  took  they 
Ihm  (Christ)  and  led  him,  and  brought  him  into  tlie 
High  Priest's  house.  And  Peter  followed  afar  oil. 
And  when  they  had  kindled  a  fire  in  the  midst  of  the 
hall,  and  were  sat  down  together,  Peter  sat  down 
among  them.  But  a  certain  maid  belipld  him  as 
he  sat  by  the  fire,  and  earnestly  looked  upon  him, 
and  said.  This  man  was  also  with  him.  And  he 
denied  him,  saying,  Woman,  1  know  Inm  not.  And 
after  a  little  while  another  saw  him,  and  said,  thou 
art  also  of  them.  And  Peter  said,  Man,  I  am  not. 
An  admirable  character  for  a  Christian  apostle  !  ! 

My  friends,  if  1  am  not  to  be  esteemed  a  Christian 
until  1  believe  such  prevaricating  priests,  I  shall  only 
become  one  when  1  cease  to  love  truth,  and,  like  the 
Christian  fathers,  consider  it  a  virtue   to  deceive  and 

*^jesus  Christ—I  liave  said  that  he,  also,  was  guilty 
of  the  nnblushing  dissimulation  which  characterizes 
liis  i)rincii)al  apostles,  and  the  most  eminent  of  their 
successors— the  "  fathers."  In  Mark,  c.  4,  y.  11  and 
12,  Christ  says,  "  unto  you  it  is  given  to  know  the 
mysteries  of  the  kinsdom  of  Cod,  but  unto  them  that 
are  without,  all  these  things  are  done  in  parables,  that 
seeing,  they  may  see,  and  not  perceive,  and  hearing, 
they  may  hear,  and  not  understand,  lest  at  any  time 
they  should  be  converted,  and  their  sins  should  be  tor- 
<-iven  them."  How  charitable  !  These  words,  we  are 
^old,  were  uttered  by  the  -Redeemer^'  of  the  world 
—he  who  was  sent  to  lead  the  human  race  from  the 
error  of  their  ways,  into  the  fold  of  truth  and  ever- 
lasting bliss  !  Strange  mode  to  convince  mankind  ot 
their  errors,  to  allow  them  to  hear  and  yet  not  nnder- 


CHRISTIAN    FATHERS    AND    APOSTLES. 


53 


stand ;  and  most  convenient  method  certainly  to  lead 
them  to  truth  by  permitting  them  to  see,  and  yet  not 
perceive  !  Well  might  St.  Jerome  say,  in  his  Apol., 
"our  Saviour  proposed  questions  to  the  Pharisees, 
but  he  resolved  none.  The  crowd  hear  our  parables 
—the  disciples  our  truth  !  " 

In  John,  c.  7,  v.  8,  we  read  of  Christ  resorting  to 
a  prevarication,  so  nearly  approaching  a  lie,  that  I 
should  esteem  it  a  favor  if  you  could  show  me  the 
diiference.  "  Co  ye  up  unto  this  feast,"  says  he,  "  1 
go  not  up  yet  unto  this  feast,  for  my  time  is  not  yet 
fully  come.  When  he  had  said  these  words  unto 
them,  he  abode  still  in  Calilee.  But  when  his  breth- 
ren were  gone  up,  then  went  he  also  up  unto  the 
feast,  not  openly,  but  as  it  were  in  secret."  The 
priesthood,  aware  of  the  direct  falsehood  that  would 
otherwise  be  manifest,  have  taken  care  to  foist  in  the 
word  oupo^  instead  of  onk.  Tiie  true  reading  is,  I 
shall  not  go  up  unto  this  feast.  Griesbach.  the  latest 
and  the  most  approved  of  the  editors  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament, has  settled  this  (piestion  beyond  controversy. 
He  has  ascertained  the  authenticity  of  ouk^  and 
adopted  it.  Thus  ( 'hrist  says  to  his  disciples,  I  shall 
not  go,  and  yet,  when  they  are  out  of  sight,  he  does 
go,  and  that,  too,  hy  stealth  I  What  disgusting  and 
puerile  deception!  IN'o  wonder  the  "holy  lathers" 
were  such  admirable  "  disciples  !  " 

I  have  now  carefully  reviewed  the  character  of  the 
Christian  Fathers  and  Apostles.  t  will  ask  you,  as 
impartial  persons,  if  I  have  not  triumpliantly  estab- 
lished the  truth  of  my  allegations,  and  that^  too,  on 
Christian  authority  ? 

It  is  now  necessary  I  should  proceed  to  the  latter 
portion  of  my  address.  I  purpose  to  show  that  even 
supposing  our  remarks  in  reference  to  the  fathers,  from 
whom  we  receive  the  Scriptures,  were  incorrect,  we 
are  still  not  justified  in  accepting  the  Bible,  as  they 
offer  it  to  us,  as  the  true  ''  Word  of  God."  And  why  \ 
Because  they  have  so  altered  it  to  suit  their  conven- 

5* 


54 


CHARACTER    OT   THE 


ience  —  to  promote  party  or  sectarian  purposes,  that 
there  is  no  possibility  of  detecting  the  genuine  from 
the  spif?ious.  And  lience  the  Bible,  as  we  now  read 
it,  is  as  hkely  to  lead  us  /row,  as  to  the  truth,  and 
therefore  altogether  inoperative  for  the  great  purpose 
for  which  it  is  designed — the  salvation  of  mankind. 

The  first  authority  I  shall  adduce  in  corfirmation 
of  this  opinion,  is  Professor  Michaelis.  He  considers 
that  ''no  one  will  deny  that  the  early  Ohrisiians,  who 
diflcred  from  the  ruling  church,  have  altered  the  New 
Testament  in  numerous  examples,  according  to  their 
peculiar  tenets,"  and  ''so  much  so,"  says  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Nolan,  in  his  Inquiry,  page  460,  "  that  little  con- 
fidence could  be  placed  in  anij  edition."  The  Rev. 
']\  11.  Ilorne,  admits  in  the  2nd  vol.  of  his  Introduc- 
tion to  the  Scriptures,  second  edition,  that  all  M.S.S., 
the  most  ancient  not  excepted,  have  erasures  and 
corrections  ]  nor  was  tliis  practice  confined  to  a  single 
letter  or  word.  The  Rev.  Mr.  Pope,  in  his  treatise  on 
the  '•  Miraculous  Conception,"  affirms  that  "the  Cam- 
bridge and  the  Alexandrian  M.S.S.  s^varin  with  cor- 
ruptions  and  interpolations.'''^  Celsus,  says  Or i gen, 
charges  the  early  fathers  with  having  three  or  fotir 
dilTcrent  readings  for  the  same  text,  or  as  he  express- 
es it,  "  they  altered  the  Gospel  three  or  four  different 
times,  as  if  they  were  dntnk,  and  when  pressed  by 
their  adversaries,  recurred  to  that  read'ing  which  best 
sii'Ued  the'ir  j)urpose  !  ^^  Origen  himself  admits,  says 
Du  Pin,  "  there  is  a  great  discrepaiicy  between  the 
copies,  which  must  be  attributed  either  to  the  negli- 
'gence  of  the  scribes,  or  to  the  audacious  perversions 
of  others,  or  to  those  who  correct  the  text  by  arbitrary 
tidditions  or  omissions,  who  oftentimes  have  put  in 
niid  left  out  as  they  thought  it  most  convenient." — 
Here  we  are  told  by  one  of  the  fathers  themselves, 
that  matters  were  "put  in  or  left  out"  of  the  Bible, 
just  "as  it  was  most  convenient."  This  shows  how 
much  we  have  to  depend  upon  the  fathers  for  the  cor- 
rectness of  the  Word  of  God.      Du  Pin  remarks,  and 


CHRISTIAN    FATHERS    AND    APOSTLES. 


55 


he  is  a  very  high  authority,  as  I  observed  on  a  former 
occasion  : — "  It  cannot  be  said  that  no  fault  has  crept 
into  the  Scriptures  by  the  negligence  or  inadvertency 
of  the  transcribers,  or  even  by  the  boldness  of  those 
who  have  ventured  to  strike  out,  add  or  change  some 
words  which  they  thought  necessary  to  be  omitted, 
added,  or  changed."  Necessary^  indeed!  Then  we 
must  believe  that  God  had  said  that  which  he  ought 
not  to  have  said,  and  omitted  saying  that  which  he 
ought  to  have  done,  or  in  otlier  words,  priests  know 
better  than  God,  what  should  be  in  the  Bible  !  What 
next? 

But,  my  friends,  listen,  I  entreat  you,  to  the  words 
of  James,  the  Librarian  of  the  University  of  Oxforil, 
a  warm  partisan  of  Protestantism.  In  his  work  on 
the  "  Corruption  of  the  Scriptures,"  page  272,  he  says, 
"  let  us  pass  a  step  or  two  further,  and  inquire  wheth- 
er they  have  not  corrupted  the  Bible  in  like  sort,  or 
worse  rather,  if  it  be  possible,  a  degree  of  imjnety 
beyond  the  degrees  of  compar'ison^  and  yet  so  plainly 
to  be  proved  against  the  Papists,  as  he  that  hath  but 
one  eye  to  see,  shall  plainly  discover  it,  and  thence  be 
induced  to  suspect  the  abomination  of  desolation  spok- 
en of  by  Daniel  the  prophet,  sitting  in  the  holy  place, 
and  admiring  himself  as  it  were  above  the  Holy  of 
Holies.  He  shall  observe  infinite  varieties^  contrarie- 
t'les,  and  contradictions^  and  oppositions  between  two 
Bibles  set  forth  by  two  Popes,  within  tiao  years  ;  both 
commanded  to  be  read  and  followed  upon  such  forms 
as  are  mentioned  in  the  briefs.  You  shall  see  the 
Popes  breathe  hot  and  cold,  say  and  u?isay  the  same 
thing  twice,  and,  in  fine,  they  have  truly  verified  the 
Bible  to  be  a  'nose  of  wax !  plied  and  wrought  uito 
fashion  for  their  own  advantage.  A  sham,e  it  is  that 
any  Christian  should  presume  to  add,  or  take  away 
aught  from  the  Word  of  God ;  yet,  O !  intolerable 
fraud,  not  any  simple  Christian  or  layman,  but  the 
Bishop  of  Rome,  chief  pastor  of  the  church,  sole  judge 
of  all  controversies,  whose  lips  should  preserve  knowl- 


56 


CHAKACTER    OF    THE 


edge,  and  his  tongue  speak  no  deceit,  hath  audacious- 
ly presumed  to  add  and  take  whole  sentences^  to  change 
the  words  of  the  holy  writ,  info  a  clear  contrary  mccni- 
ing,  to  make  as  it  were  wJtite  blacky  and  black  vhite  !  " 

This  practice  of  altering  the  Bihle  to  suit  party 
purposes,  is  hy  no  means  confined  to  ancient  times, — 
to  tlie  first  four  centuries  of  the  Christian  era.  It  has 
been  adopted  by  the  learned  of  every  sect  to  the  [)res- 
ent  day.  They  have  well  followed  the  example  of 
the  holy  fathers,  though,  unfortunately  for  them,  the 
printing  press  now  tends  to  curb  such  audacious  pro- 
pensities. 

The  Rev.  Mr.  Cooper,  in  his  "^IVacts,  page  /)21,  says 
distinctly, — •'*  Were  a  Socinian  to  make  a  new  trans- 
lation, he  would  translate  imdcr  the  guidance  of  his 
Socinian  opinions,  and  properly."  This  is  actually 
saying,  when  a  person  translates  the  Bible,  he  need 
not  adhere  to  the  real  text,  but  give  what  interpreta- 
tion he  thinks  proper.  Oh  !  ye  pious  translators,  how 
we  must  admire  your  honesty  ! 

This  is  the  charge  which  the  Christian  sects  bring 
against  one  another — that  they  have  altered  the  word 
of  God  to  suit  their  peculiar  opinions,  and  not  adhered 
to  the  original.  If  so,  we  must  concur  with  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Nolan,  that  we  cannot  depend  upon  any  one  of 
thcni. 

To  preclude  the  possibility  of  your  supposing  that 
I  am  desirous  of  giving  you  mere  assertion  without 
proof,  I  shall  here  quote  from  some  of  the  leading 
sects.  Hitherto,  during  the  whole  of  this  course,  1 
have  given  you  my  authorities  for  every  affirmation  I 
have  made.     I  shall  continue  to  do  so  to  the  close. 

Dr.  Jones,  in  the  Monthly  RepositorJ^  for  1S26,  (the 
Unitarian  organ)  says  that  "Trinitarians  never  have 
referred,  nor  never  will  refer  to  a  single  place  through- 
out the  whole  Testament  which  could  ever  suggest  the 
idea  of  the  doctrine  of  three  persons  in  one  essence  be- 
sides the  controverted  verse,  the  7th  of  1st  John,  c.  5." 

We  arc  told,  in  the  celebrated  Unitarian   Reply  to 


CHRISTIAN    FATHERS    AND    APOSTLES. 


57 


Magee,  published  in  1813,  that  this  text  is  "  an  impi- 
ous forgery,"  and,  "  it  appears  to  be  little  less  than 
blasphemy  to  retain  it  in  a  book  which  is  represented 
to  be  inspired."  Similar  charges  arc  made  by  the 
Unitarians  against  all  the  verses  in  the  first  chap,  of 
Luke  after  the  1th.  The  whole  of  the  second  chap, 
is  denounced  as  "  spurious,"  and  only  "  to  serve  the 
purposes  of  certain  sects."  The  same  with  the  first 
of  Matthew,  after  the  17th  verse;  and  the  whole  of 
the  second.  These  passages  inculcate  the  doctrine  of 
miraculous  conception,  which  is  denied  by  the  l^nita- 
rians. 

The  Rev.  Dr.  Campbell,  in  the  introduction  to  his 
translation  of  the-  Scrii)tures,  makes  some  strong  re- 
marks upon  lieza,  who  published  the  edition  of  the 
Greek  Testament  from  which  our  modern  English 
version  is  taken  : — "  Mere  we  have  a  man,"  says  he, 
*'who,  in  effect,  acknowledges  that  he  would  not  have 
translated  some  things  in  the  way  he  has  done,  if  it 
wore  not  that  he  could  thereby  strike  a  severer  blow 
against  his  adversaries,  or  ward  oil*  a  blow  whicli  an 
adversary  might  aim  against  him!"  How  conven- 
ient this  Bible  is,  truly  ! 

The  celebrated  Methodist,  Dr.  Adam  Clarke,  in  his 
Commentary  on  the  Bible,  protests  against  those  pas- 
sages ill  the  third  chapter  of  Genesis,  which  declare 
that  Eve  was  tempted  by  a  serpent.  He  asserts  it 
was  a  monkey^  and  not  a  serpent  that  lemj)ted  her.— 
A  monkey  J  indeed !  a  most  bewitching  animal  to  tempt 
any  one ! 

Mr.  Bellamy  declares  that  the  story  in  the  Old 
Testament  about  Balaam  and  his  ass  is  a  complete 
misinterpretation,  and  ought  to  be  "immediately  re- 
vised." He  concludes  his  remarks  upon  this  subject 
as  follows  : — "  Really,  it  is  time  y^ou  should  get  rid  of 
such  childish  notions.  To  say  any  more  on  such  ab- 
surd conclusions  would  be  a  waste  of  time.  Depend 
upon  it,  that,  whatever  they  may  do  noiv^  asses  never 
spoke  in  the  day^s  of  Balaam." 


68 


CHARACTER    OF    THE 


1  could  detain  yoii,  my  friends,  for  lionrs,  showing 
that  alterations  have  been^  or  to  behevc  some  theolo- 
gians, ought  to  6e,  made  in  the  Word  of  God,  but  suf- 
fice it  to  say,  as  time  is  now  far  advanced,  that 
according  to  the  Unitarian  verison,  there  are  no  less 
than  150,000  readings  of  the  Scriptures,  all  of  which 
arc  more  or  less  different.  And  this  book,  about 
which  such  innumerable  and  serious  differences  exist, 
and  that,  too,  against  the  most  learned  of  our  race,  is 
the  onhj  book  which  is  to  guide  us  to  everlasting 
trutli  and  joy  !  I  am  apprehensive  it  will  prove  a 
blind  guide,  for  if  there  are  so  many  contradictory 
readings  as  declared  by  the  Unitarians,  it  will  be  149,- 
999  to  1  if  we  have  the  right  one.  Who  will  run  the 
risk  of  eternal   salvation  or  damnation  at  such  odds? 

But  It  may  be  said,  people  can  exert  their  own  in- 
tellect upon  the  matter,  and  judge  for  themselves. 
The  Bible,  they  say,  is  so  self-evident  that  none  but 
an  abandoned  Infidel  could  mistake  it.  It  is  so  pal- 
pable that  "  any  one  who  runs  may  read,  and  so 
reading,  fully  comprehend."  Not  so,  my  friends. 
Michaehs  says,  in  his  Introduction  to  the  New  Testa- 
ment, "  No  man  is  capable  of  understanding  the  New 
Testament,  imless,  to  an  acquamtance  with  the 
Greek  he  joins  a  knowledge  of  at  least  Hebrew, 
Syriac,  and  Rabbinic."  Professor  Campbell  asserts, 
*'  that  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  are  absolutely  neces- 
sary to  him  who  is  desirous  of  ascertaining  the 
genuine  meaning  of  the  sacred  volume."  He  further 
remarks,  "  To  understand  the  Scriptures  we  should 
get  acquainted  with  each  writer's  style.  2nd.  In- 
quire carefidly  into  their  character,  ofiice,  and  situ- 
ation, and  the  time,  place,  and  occasion  of  their 
writing,  and  the  people  for  whose  use  they  wrote. 
3rd.  Consider  the  scope,  <fcc.,  of  the  book.  4th. 
Where  the  phrase  is  obscure,  consult  the  context: 
this  will  not  always  answer.  5th.  If  not,  consider 
if  it  be  any  of  the  writer's  peculiarities,  if  so,  inquire 
what  is  the  acceptation  of  it   in  other  places.     6th. 


CHRISTIAN   FATHERS   AND   APOSTLES. 


69 


If  this  fail,  have  recourse  to  parallel  passages.  7th, 
If  this  fail,  consult  the  Old  Testament  and  Septua- 
gint,  where  the  word  may  be  used :  8th,  and  the 
classic  writers  :  9th,  and  the  Fathers :  10th,  and  the 
ancient  version,  modern  scholiasts,  annotators,  and 
translators:  11th,  the  analogy  of  faith,  and  the  ety- 
mology of  words,  which  must  be  used  with  caution." 
In  addition  to  these,  or  similar  general  rules,  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Home,  in  his  Introduction  to  the  Scriptures,  fur- 
nishes us  with  ten  rules  for  investigating  the  original 
meaning  of  Scripture  words,  five  for  that  of  emphasis, 
with  which  the  Scripture  abounds,  and  eight  for  par- 
allelisms, of  which  three  kinds  are  specified;  then 
seven  rules  for  discovering  the  sense  by  the  subject 
niatter,  and  by  the  context,  and  seven  more  for 
discovering  it  by  historical  circumstances,  including 
ten  particulars,  such  as  the  order,  title,  date,  author, 
place  where  written,  chronology,  occasion,  scope,  an- 
alysis, biblical  antiquities,  (fee.  !  Then  for  investigat- 
ing the  scope  itself,  six  rules,  and  for  the  analogy  of 
faith,  eight !  Then  again  for  the  historical  interpre- 
tation, seven  rules :  for  the  interpreting  of  figurative 
language,  twelve ;  one  of  which  rules  is,  that  ''  the 
literal  meaning  of  the  words  is  to  be  given  up,  if  it 
be  improper,  or  involve  an  impossibility,  or  is  con- 
trary to  common  sense  !  " 

Then,  in  addition  to  all  these  rules,  numerous 
others  are  given  for  interpreting  the  four  kinds  of 
metonymies  occurring  in  Scripture;  others  for  the 
metaphors  ;  others  for  the  allegories,  the  parables,  the 
proverbs,  the  figures,  and  the  spiritual  interpretations. 
Then  comes  a  great  variety  for  interpreting  ^he 
prophecies,  the  types,  legal^  prophetical,  and  histori- 
cal, and  no  fewer  than  twenty-two  for  the  interpret- 
ing of  doctrines  !  !  And  yet  we  are  told  that  the 
Bible  is  self-evident !  Very ;  for  a  man  may  live  a 
life-time  before  he  can  understand  it,  and  then,  after 
all,  may  be  mistaken  !  Well  may  they  say,  that 
^'  narrow  is  the  way  that  leadeth  to  everlasting  life, 
and  few  there  be  that  find  it !  " 


60 


CHARACTER    OF    THE    CHRISTIAN    FATHERS. 


The  author  of  "  The  Protestant's  Progress  '*  oh- 
serves — "  The  disposition  of  our  four  gospel- writers 
to  exaggeration,  may  be  seen  exemplified  in  that 
enormous  hyperbole  with  which  John  concludes  his 
narrative — that  '  the  whole  world  could  not  contain 
the  volumes  that  might  be  filled  with  the  exploits  of 
Jesus.'  A  man  who  could  hazard  such  an  asser- 
tion, is  capable  of  asserting  anything.  Unfortunately 
mankind  are  more  credulous  and  dogmatical  in  their 
religious  belief  than  on  any  other  subject;  since  no 
man  of  sound  judgment  would  believe  such  improb- 
able stories  on  evidence  so  doubtful,  in  any  of  the 
ordinary  affairs  of  life.  Had  Jesus  been  really  God 
Almighty  or  an  emissary  from  God,  he  would  surely 
not  have  permitted  such  contemptible  productions  to 
be  circulated  as  an  authentic  and  inspired  account  of 
his  ministry  on  earth,  while  promulgating  the  grand 
and  indispensable  scheme  of  Redemption.  Dr.  Isaac 
Watts  most  judiciously  remarks  that  "  there  have 
been  so  many  falsehoods  imposed  upon  mankind, 
with  specious  pretences  of  eye  and  ear-witnesses,  that 
should  make  us  wisely  cautious  and  justly  suspicious 
of  such  reports,  where  the  concurrent  signs  of  truth 
do  not  fairly  appear,  and  especially  where  the  matter 
is  of  considerable  importance.  And  the  less  probable 
the  fact  testified  in  itself,  the  greater  evidence  may 
we  justly  demand  of  the  veracity  of  that  testimony 
on  which  it  claims  to  be  admitted." 


LECTURE  FOURTH. 


EXTERNAL   EVIDENCE. 


Friends — 

I  APPEAR  this  evening  to  deliver  our  fourth  address 
on  the  Divinity  of  the  Bible.  In  our  first  two  dis- 
courses I  gave  a  brief  history  of  the  Old  and  New 
Testament,  tracing  the  subject  from  the  earliest  to  the 
most  recent  times.  In  our  last,  I  considered  a  ques- 
tion intimately  and  inseparably  connected  with  that 
history — the  Character  of  the  Christian  Fathers  in 
whose  hands  the  Bible  originally  reposed,  and  upon 
whose  ipse  dixit  we  receive  it  as  the  "  Word  of 
God."  We  now  proceed  to  discuss  other  portions  of 
this  interesting  and  extensive  subject. 

Modern  theologians  divide  Christian  evidences  into 
two  parts — External  and  Internal.  We  shall  only 
deal  with  the  former  on  this  occasion.  The  external 
evidence  in  favor  of  the  Scriptures  is  a  favorite  theme 
with  the  generality  of  Christians.  They  usually  re- 
sort to  this  topic  when  forced  to  debate  the  question. 

Not  wishing  to  be  drawn  into  the  internal  evidence, 
or.  at  least,  those  portions  which  refer  to  the  obscen- 
ities, the  immoralities,  discrepancies,  and  absurdities, 
they  endeavor  to  conceal  their  weakness,  and  delude 
the  multitude,  by  an  ostentatious  display  of  learning. 
They  tell  them  this  "  memorable "  historian,  that 
"immortal"  author,  this  "great  man,"  contempora- 
neous with,  or  immediately  subsequent  to,  the  early 
Christians,    made    ''honorable   mention"    of  Christ, 

6 


I 


62 


EXTERNAL    EVIDENCE. 


and    Christianity,    and    thence   infer    the    Christian 
scheme  is  divhie. 

Popular  though  this  mode  of  determining  the  divin- 
ity of  Scripture  undoubtedly  is,  its  unsatisfactory  and 
fallacious  character  is  apparent.  Such  evidence  is 
manifestly  incompetent  to  decide  the  truth  of  any 
doctrine  or  system.  Before  testimony  of  this  nature 
can  be  received  as  coiichisive  it  must  be  shown,  in  the 
first  place,  that  these  writers  were  "  inspired '^  or 
infallible.  If  they  were  in  the  Icasl  degree  liable  to 
err,  their  testimony,  on  a  question  of  this  kind,  must 
be  received  with  consummate  circumspection,  if  it  be 
not  altogether  rejected.  Were  the  whole  of  the  ex- 
ternal evidence  usually  adduced  by  the  Christian 
world  unquestionably  true.  I  still  maintain  they  have 
not  established  the  divinity  of  their  book.  If  it  can 
be  proved  that  the  Bible  contains  absolute  falsehoods, 
contradictions,  and  immoralities,  (as  will  be  shown 
in  subsequent  lectures,)  all  the  external  evidence  in 
the  world  is  of  no  avail.  No  external  evidence  can 
make  that  true  which  is  palpably  false — that  consist- 
ent which  is  grossly  Incoyisistent^  or  that  moral  which 
is  manifestly  immoral.  The  insufficiency,  therefore, 
of  this  evidence  to  decide  the  question  at  issue,  is 
obvious.  Dr.  Middleton,  a  distinguished  divine  of 
the  last  century,  though  an  eminent  exponent  of 
Christianity,  admirably  remark's, — "  Examining  the 
external  evidence  is  certainly  losing  time,  and  begin- 
ning at  the  wrong  end,  since  it  is  allowed  on  all 
hands  that  if  any  narration  can  be  shown  to  be  false, 
any  doctrine  irrational  and  immoral,  'tis  not  all  the 
external  evidence  in  the  world  that  can,  or  ovfjrht  to 
convuice  us  that  such  a  doctrine  comes  from  God.'' 
The  celebrated  Dr.  Vcscimus  Knox  also  confesses,  in 
his  Christian  Philosophy,  that  "  It  is  certain  that  the 
argumentative  mode  of  addressing  unbelievers,  and  a 
reliance  upon  external  evidence,  has  hitherto  failed, 
and  will  never  convince  them.  Notwithstanding  the 
stupendous  labors  of  the  writers  of  evidences,  con- 


EXTERNAL    EVIDENCE. 


63 


tinned  with  little  intermission,  the  great  cause  which 
they  maintain  is  on  tlie  decline.  Many  of  the  most 
learned  and  able  men  of  modern  times,  who  were 
capable  of  understanding  the  historical,  logical,  and 
metaphysical  defences  of  Christianity,  have  read 
them  without  conviction,  and  laughed  at  their  labo- 
rious imbecility !  "  John  Wesley,  the  founder  of 
Methodism,  is  also  obliged  to  admit  tiiat  "  traditional 
evidence  for  Christianity  is  of  an  extremely  compli- 
cated nature,  necessarily  including  so  many  and  so 
various  considerations,  that  only  men  of  strong  and 
clear  understanding  can  be  sensible  of  its  full  force." 
(Letter  to  Warburton,  p.  108.)  Such  is  the  uncer- 
tain, dubious,  and  unsatisfactor)^  nature  of  external 
evidence,  as  admitted  by  Christians  themselves. 

1  now  proceed  to  show,  however,  that  the  external 
evidence  which  they  do  adduce,  is,  in  many  instan- 
ces, completely  spurious,  in  some  so  questionable  as 
to  be  utterly  inadmissible,  and  in  others  tells  against 
rather  than  for  the  Christian  system. 

Before  I  enter  upon  the  subject.  I  deem  it  advisable 
to  name  the  profane  authors  who  flourished  during 
the  first  two  centuries  of  the  Christian  era.  Those 
who  are  said  to  have  mentioned  Christianity  are  the 
following:  Josephus,  a.  d.  40,  (see  Jewish  Antiqui- 
ties) ;  Pliny,  a.  d.  107,  (sec  letter  to  Trajan) ;  Seuto- 
nius,  A.  D.  110,  (see  Lives  of  Nero  and  Claudius) ; 
Tacitus,  A.  D.  110,  (see  Annals)  ;  Adrian,  a.  d.  138, 
(see  Epistle  to  Scrvianus)  ;  Lucianus,  a.  d.  17G,  (see 
Dialogue  on  the  Death  of  Peregrinus)  ;  Cclsus,  a.  d. 
17G,  (see  Essay  on  the  True  Word,  as  quoted  by 
Origen.)  Those  who  are  supposed  only  to  have  al- 
luded to  Christians  are  —  Dio  Pruseus,  a.  d.  98 ; 
Martialis,  a.  d.  100;  Juvenalis,  a.  d.  100;  Epictetus, 
A.  d.  109;  Arrianus,  a.  d.  140;  Lucius  Apuleius,  a.  d. 
164;  Aristides,  a.  d.  176. 

Those  writers  who  would  be  likely  to  refer  to  the 
Christians,  but  who  have  not  done  so,  are — Philo,  a.  d. 
40 ;  Pliny,  the  elder,  a.  d.  79  ;  Seneca,  a.  d.  79 ;  Diog. 


64 


EXTERNAL    EVIDENCE. 


enes  Laertius,  a.  d.  79  ;  Pausanias,  a.  d.  79 ;  Pompon 
Mela,  A.  D.  79 ;  Appiaiius,  a.  d.  123  :  Justinius,  a.  d. 
140;  and  Elianns,  a.  d.  141.  Those  who  were  less 
likely  to  alkide  to  the  Christians,  and  did  not  do  so, 
are — Lucanus,  a.  d.  63;  Petronius  Arbiter,  a.  d.  64; 
ItaUcus,  A.  D.  64 ;  M.  Lncanus,  a.  d.  65  ;  Flaccns,  a.  d. 
65 ;  Papinus  Statins,  a.  d.  90 ;  and  Ptolemajns,  a.  d. 
130. 

In  this  discussion  we  have  only  to  consider  those 
writers  who  arc  actually  said  to  have  meniioned  Chris- 
tianity. In  reference  to  the  rest,  I  may  just  remark 
that  it  is  a  very  suspicious  circumstance  they  should 
remain  silent  upon  the  subject.  Some  of  them  were 
the  greatest  writers  of  antiquity,  and  could  not  possi- 
bly have  omitted  noticing  all  extraordinary  events. — 
If  Christ  and  his  discij)lcs,  therefore,  performed  such 
wonders  as  asserted  by  their  modern  followers,  why 
are  they  not  noticed,  i'avorably  or  unfavorably,  by 
these  distinguished  historians?  Philo,  the  most  emi- 
nent historian  of  the  first  century,  and  contemporary 
with  Christ,  gives  an  elaborate  account  of  the  state  of 
the  Jews,  and  their  alllictions  under  Augustus,  Tibe- 
rius, and  Cains  Caligula, — the  very  period  embracing 
the  whole  extent  of  Christ's  life,  but  makes  not  the 
slightest  allusion  to  Christianity,  either  in  contempt 
or  otherwise.  This  "great  fact"  is  more  remarkable 
when  we  remember  that  Philo  was  sent  by  tlie  Jews 
as  aml)assador  to  Rome,  only  eight  years  after  the 
death  of  Christ.  Nay,  there  is  every  reason  to  believe 
if  such  a  person  as  Christ  was  crucified,  it  must  have 
been  at  tiie  very  time  Philo  was  at  Jerusalem.  The 
silence  of  this  great  historian,  living,  as  lie  did,  at  the 
very  time  of  Christ,  and  in  the  very  place  in  which 
his  miracles  arc  said  to  have  been  performed,  together 
with  the  taciturnity  of  other  eminent  v/ritcrs,  is  con- 
clusive proof  that  the  pretensions  of  Christians  to  the 
divine  inllucncc  of  their  master,  arc  perfectly  gratui- 
tous. 

With  respect  to  those  writers  who  are  said  to  have 


) 


EXTERNAL    EVIDENCE. 


65 


mentioned  Christ  and  his  disciples,  the  first  in  order 
is  that  of  the  famous  Jewish  historian,  Josephus. — 
This  great  man  was  born  in  the  year  37,  and  died 
during  that  of  93.  Tlie  passage  in  which  he  is  rep- 
resented as  alluding  to  Christ,  will  be  found  in  his 
"Jewish  Antiquities."  It  is  as  follows: — "At  tliat 
time  lived  Jesus,  a  wise  man,  if  he  may  he  called  a 
man  ;  for  he  performed  many  wonderful  works,  lie 
was  the  teacher  of  such  men  as  received  the  truth 
with  pleasure.  He  drew  over  to  him  many  Jews  and 
Gentiles.  This  was  the  Christ.  And  when  Pilate, 
at  the  instigation  of  the  chief  men  amongst  us,  had 
condemned  him  to  the  cross,  they,  who  before  had 
conceived  an  afFection  for  him,  did  not  cease  to  adhere 
to  him.  Por  on  the  third  day  he  appeared  to  them 
alive  ag-aijij  the  divine  prophets  having  foretold  these 
and  many  wonderful  things  respecting  him ;  and  the 
sect  of  the  Christians,  so-called  from  him,  subsists  to 
this  dayy  This  passage,  so  strikingly  in  favor  of  the 
Christian  system,  and  so  highly  and  so  exultingly 
prized  by  Christians,  is  beyond  all  question  the  most 
impudent  interpolation  ever  foisted  into  tlie  writings 
of  any  author.  It  is  an  absolute  and  unqualified /<y/- 
gcry.  It  is  supposed  to  have  been  introduced  into  the 
writings  of  Josephus  about  the  fourth  century,  as  it  is 
not  mentioned  before  that  time.  The  man  who  was 
the  first  to  disseminate  such  an  infamous  imposition 
was  the  Christian  Father  and  historian  Eusebius. — 
This  conduct  is  quite  in  consonance  with  the  charac- 
ter I  gave  of  iiim  in  my  last  discourse.  Tranquil 
Faber,  a  distinguished  Christian  critic,  was  the  first 
to  accuse  that  pious  rogue  of  this  forgery.  The  fol- 
lowing (piotation  from  the  second  book,  chapter  12,  of 
Eusebius's  Ecclesiastical  History,  will  give  you  an 
idea  of  the  singular  ifitcgrity  of  this  "  Holy  Father," 
and  the  deliberate,  unblushing  audacity  with  which 
he  refers  to  this  passage,  which  he  himself  wrote,  and 
not  Josephus: — "Now,  when,  as  this  historiographer, 
(meaning  Josephus)  by  blood  an  Hebrew  born,  hath 

6* 


66 


EXTERNAL    EVIDENCE. 


of  old  delivered  in  writing  these,  and  the  like  things 
concerning  John  the  Baptist,  and  our  Saviour  Christ, 
what  refuge  or  shift  now  have  they,  but  that  they  be 
condemned  as  impudent  persons^  which  of  their  own 
brain  have  fained  commentaries  contrary  to  these  al- 
legations?" It  is  evident  Eusebius  practiced  this 
forgery,  thinking  that  Josephus's  great  name  might 
have  its  influence  in  silencing  the  enemies  of  Cliristi- 
anity.  Well  might  he  inquire  "  hoio  far  falsehood 
might  he  used  as  a  mediciyie  !  "  Dr.  Lardncr,  admit- 
ting the  anxiety  of  the  Christians  to  obtani  the  testi- 
mony of  this  learned  Jew,  says,  vol.  1,  page  IGG,  of 
his  Jewish  and  Heathen  testimonies, — "  They  (the 
Fathers)  were  fond  of  having  his  testimony,  whether 
there  was  ground  for  it  or  not."  Modest  and  honest 
Christians,  truly !  We  find  that  immediately  after 
the  period  of  Eusebius,  this  notorious  forgery  was 
adduced  as  a  "glorious"  proof  of  the  divinity  of 
Christianity!  The  fathers  Jerome,  Isedorus,  Zozo- 
men,  and  Calistus  were  remarkably  ambitious  of 
holding  it  up  as  a  silencer  to  all  sceptics  and  unbeliev- 
ers. No  one  could  doubt  the  divinity  of  Christ  after 
it  had  been  admitted  by  so  great  an  historian  as  Jose- 
phus  !  I  am  happy  to  say,  however,  the  more  enlight- 
ened of  the  clergy  of  modern  times  are  ashamed  of 
the  tricks  of  their  pious  predecessors,  and  silently 
abandon  the  evidence  of  Joscphus.  Faber,  as  before 
stated,  repudiated  it  long  ago.  Pishop  Warburton 
disowns  it  with  contempt.  He  shrewdly  observes,  as 
quoted  by  Dr.  Lardncr,  vol.  1,  page  103, — "  If  a  Jew 
owned  the  truth  of  Christianity,  he  must  needs  embrace 
it.  We,  therefore,  certainly  conclude,  that  the  para- 
graph where  Joscphus,  who  was  as  much  a  Jew  as 
the  religion  of  iMoses  could  make  him,  is  made  to  ac- 
knowledge Jesus  as  the  Christ,  in  as  strong  terms  as 
words  could  do' it,  is  a  rank  forgery^  and  a  very  stupid 
oiie  ioo.^^  Le  Clcrc,  Du  Pin,  Blondcl,  Vandale,  and 
Lardncr,  have  also  repudiated  this  passage;  and  Gib- 
bon, in  his  "  Decline  and  Fall  of  the  Roman  Empire," 


EXTERNAL    EVIDENCE. 


67 


I 


I 


denounces  it  as  "  no  vulgar  forgery."  Dr.  Lardner, 
indeed,  has  entered  into  an  elaborate  and  laborious 
refutation  of  this  leputed  testimony  of  Joscphus.  His 
reasoning  is  most  masterly  and  unanswerab  e,  and 
completely  settles  the  question.  I  give  you  a  brief 
extract.  In  vol.  1,  chap.  4,  and  page  150,  of  his  well 
known  and  voluminous  work,  he  remarks, — "This 
passage  is  received  by  many  learned  men  as  genuine. 
By  others,  it  is  rejected  as  an  interpolation.  It  is 
allowed  on  all  hands  that  it  is  in  all  the  copies  of  Jo- 
sephus's  works,  now  extant,  both  printed  and  manu- 
script. Nevertheless,  it  may  be,  for  several  reasons, 
called  in  question.  They  are  such  as  these  : — This 
paragraph  is  not  quoted  nor  referred  to  by  any  Chris- 
tian writer  before  Eusebius,  who  flourished  at  the 
beginning  of  the  fourth  century.  If  it  had  been  orig- 
inally in  the  works  of  Joscphus,  it  would  have  been 
highly  proper  to  produce  it  in  their  disputes  with  Jews 
and  Gentiles.  But  it  is  never  quoted  by  Justin  Mar- 
tyr, or  Clement,  of  Alexandria,  nor  by  Tertuilian,  or 
Origen,  men  of  great  learning,  and  well  acquainted 
with  the  works  of  Joscphus.  It  was  certainly  very 
proper  to  urge  it  against  the  Jews.  It  might  also  have 
been  fitly  alleged  against  the  Gentiles.  A  testimony 
so  favorable  to  Jesus  in  the  works  of  Joseplnis,  who 
lived  so  soon  after  our  Saviour,  who  was  so  well  ac- 
quainted with  the  transactions  of  his  own  country, 
Avho  had  received  so  many  favors  from  Vespassian 
and  Titus,  would  not  be  overlooked  or  neglected  by 
any  Christian  apologist.  Tliis  passage  was  wanting 
in  the  copies  of  Joscphus  which  were  seen  by  Photius 
in  the  ninth  century — I  make  a  distinct  article  of  this 
writer  because  he  read  and  revised  the  works  of  Josc- 
phus as  a  critic. — He  has,  in  his  Bibliotheque,  no  less 
than  three  articles  concerning  Josephus,  but  takes  no 
notice  of  this  passage.  Whence  it  may  be  concluded 
that  it  was  wanting  in  his  copies,  or  that  he  did  not 
think  it  genuine.  But  the  former  is  more  likely. — 
This  paragraph  concerning  Jesus  interrupts  the  course 


68 


EXTERxNAL  EVIDENCE. 


of  the  narrative,  and,  therefore,  is  not  genuine,  bnt  an 
interpolation.      In  tlie   preceding  paragraph,  Joseplius 
gives   an    account  o{  an   attempt  of   Pilate  to  bring 
water   from   a  distant   place    to  Jerusalem,  with   the 
sacred    money,    which   occasioned   a  disturbance,    in 
whicli   many   of    the   Jews   were    killed,   and    many 
others  were  wounded.     The  paragraph   next  follow- 
ing this   about   which   we   are   now  speaking,  begins 
thus — '  And  about  the  same  time,  another  sad  calam- 
ity gave   the   Jews  great  uneasiness.      That  calamity 
was  no  less  than  banishing  the  Jews  from  Rome,  by 
order  of  the    Kmperor    Tiber  ins,   occasioned,    as    he 
says,  by  the  misconduct  of  some  Jews  in   that  city.' 
This  j)aragraph,  therefore,  was  not  originally  in   Jo- 
sephus  ;  it  does  not  come  from  liim,  bnt  is  an  interpo- 
lation  inserted   by  somebody  afterwards."      Such   is 
the  powerful  and  irrefutable  reasoning  of  that  learned 
Christian,  whose  argumeiits  to  this  day  remain  un- 
invalidated.    Some  Christian  writers  have  maintained 
thai   Josephus    must    have    noticed    Christ ;    but    the 
Jews  had  suppressed  all  such  passages,  which  spoke 
favorably  of  him.     This,  however,  is  an  inadmissi])le 
supposition,   since    it   is   well    known   that   Josephns 
pid)lished  his  works  out  of  the  reach  of  his  country- 
men, while  residing  at   Rome,  and  living  under  the 
si)ecial   protection  of  the   Roman    l^^mperors.      If  he 
did   speak  of  Christ,  we  may  reasonably   snppose   it 
wonld   be  in  contempt,  as  Josephus  remained  all  his 
life-time   sincerely   attached    to   the  Jewish    religion, 
and  shows  himself,  in  the  whole  course  of  his  work, 
a  zealons  follower  of  the  law  of  Moses.     But  there  is 
no  passage  in  the  earlier  copies  of  Josephus,  favora- 
ble or  unfavorable,  in   reference  to  Christ,   as  stated 
by  Bigen   and   other  ancient  Christian  writers,  who, 
having  attentively  perused  all  the  works  of  Josephus, 
express  their  surprise  at  not  having  found  the  slight- 
est  mention    made   of    Jesns    Christ.     Jf,    then,    the 
testimony  of  Josephus   is  to  be   given  np,  the  main 
prop   to    Christian    evidence    is    annihilated.       The 


A 


ii' 


4* 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


60 


Christian  world  have  no  authority  in  confirmation  of 
their  pretensions  during  the  first  cetUury — the  very 
time  when  aidhority  is  granting. 

This  universal  silence,  therefore,  at  a  time  so  pe- 
culiarly and  pre-eminently  imj)ortant,  incontestably 
proves  that  the  Christian  system  has  no  more  author- 
ity to  be  divine,  than  the  rest  of  the  religions  of  the 
world. 

We  now  come  to  remark  upon  the  next  writer  who 
is  alleged  to  have  mentioned  Christianity,  viz.,  l^liny 
the  younger,  a  distinguished  Roman  Author  and 
proconsulate.  The  reference  which  this  celebrated 
character  is  stated  to  have  made  to  this  system,  will 
be  found  in  his  letttu*  to  Trajan,  Emperor  of  Rome, 
written  during  the  year  a.  d.  110.     It  commences — 

"  Pliny,  to  the  Emperor  Trajan,  wisheth  health 
and  happiness  : — 

"Sir — It  is  my  constant  method  to  apply  myself  to 
you  for  the  resolution  of  all  my  doubts;  for  who  can 
Ixnter  govern  my  dilat<3ry  way,  or  instruct  my  igno- 
rance ?  1  have  never  been  present  at  the  examina- 
tion of  Christians,  (by  others,)  on  which  account  I 
am  unacquainted  with  what  usages  to  be  iiKpiired 
into,  and  what  and  how  far  they  used  to  be  pun- 
ished; nor  are  my  doubts  small,  whether  there  be  not 
a  distinction  to  be  made  between  the  ages  of  the 
accused,  and  wliether  tender  youth  ought  to  have  the 
same  punishment  with  strong  men  7  whether  there  be 
not  room  for  pardon  on  repentance  7  or  whether  it 
may  not  be  an  advantage  to  one  that  had  been  a 
Christian,  that  he  has  forsaken  Christianity 7  whether 
the  bare  name  without  any  crimes  besides,  or  the 
crime  adhering  to  that  name,  be  to  be  punished  7 
In  the  meantime  I  have  taken  this  course  about 
those  who  have  been  brought  before  me  as  Christ- 
ians :  1  asked  them  whether  they  were  Christians 
or  not.  If  they  confessed  that  they  were  Christians, 
I  asked  them  again,  and  a  third  time,  intermixing 
threatnings  with  the  (questions;   if  they  persevered  in 


70 


EXTEliNAL  EVlDJiNCE. 


/ 


their  confession,  I  ordered  them  to  be  executed,  for  I 
did  not   doubt,  let   their   confession    be   of  any    sort 
whatsoever,  this  positiveness  and  inflexible   obstinacy 
deserved  to  be  punislied.     There  have  been    some  of 
this  inad  sect  that  I  took  notice  of  in   particular    as 
Roman  citizens,  that  they  might  be  sent  to  that  city. 
After  some  time,  as  is  usual  on   such  examinations, 
the  crime  spread  itself,  and  many  more   cases  came 
before   me.      A   libel  was  sent,  though   without   an 
autlior,  containing  many  names  (of  persons  accused.) 
These   denied    that   they    were    Christians    now,    or 
ever   had   been.     They  called  upon    the    Gods,  and 
supplicated    to   your  image,   which    1    caused    to    be 
brought    to  me  for   that  purpose,  with    frankincense 
and  wine;  tliey  also  cursed  Christ,   none   of   which 
things,  as  it  is  said,  can  any  of  those  who   are   really 
('hristians  be  compelled  to  do  ;  so  1  thought  fit  to  let 
them  go.     Others  of  them   that  were   named   in   the 
libel,  said  they  were  Christians,  but  had  ceased  to  be 
some  three   years,  some   many  more ;  and   one   there 
was  that  said  he  had  not  been  so  these  twenty  years. 
All  these  worshipped   your  image,  and   the   image  of 
our  Cods ;  these  also  cursed   Christ.     However,  they 
assured  me   tliat  the   main  of  their   fault,  or  of   their 
mistake,  was  this, — that  they  were  woiit^   on  a  stated 
day^  to  meet  together  before  it  was  light^  and  to  sing 
a  hymn  to   Christy  as  to  a  God^  alternately  ;  and   to 
oblige  themselves  by  a  sacrament,  (or  oath,)  not  to 
do  anything  that  was  ill,  that  they  would  commit  no 
theft,  or  pilfering,  or  adultery  ;  that   they  would  not 
break   their  promises,   or  deny  what   was    deposited 
with   them  when   it  was  required   back   again  ;   after 
which   It  was  their  custom  to    depart,  and   to   meet 
again  at  a  common    but   innocent    meal,  which    yet 
they  had  left  oil  upon   that  edict  which  I  published 
at  your  command,  and  wherein  I  had   forbidden  any 
sucli    conventicles.      These   examinations    made   me 
think   it   necessary   to  inquue   by  torments  what   the 
truth  was,  which  1  did  of  two  servant  maids,  winch 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


7\ 


were  called  deaconesses,  but  still  I  discovered  no  more 
than  that  they  ivere  addicted  to  a  bad  and  an  extrava- 
gant  superstition.      Hereupon   I    have   put   off  any 
further  examination  and    have  recourse  to  you,  for 
the   affair   seems  to  l)e  well  worth  consultation,'  es- 
pecially on  account  of  the  number  of  tliose  that  are 
in   danger;    for    there   are   many  of  every  age   and 
every  rank,  and  of  both  sexes,  which   are  now  and 
hereafter  likely  to  be  called  to  account,  and   to  be  in 
danger;  for   this  superstition  is  spread  like  a  conta- 
gion, not  only   into  the  cities   and    towns,  but  into 
country  villages  also,  Avhich  yet   there  is   reason    to 
hope  may  be  stopped  and  corrected.     To  be  sure,  tlie 
temples,  which  are  almost  forsaken,  begin  already  to 
be  frequented ;  and  the  holy  solemnities,  which  were 
long  intermitted,  begin  to  be  revived.     The  sacrifices 
begin   to  sell   well    everywhere,   of  which   very  few 
purchasers  Iiad  of  late  appeared;  whereby  it  is  easy 
to  suppose  how   great  a  multitude  of  men  may  be 
amended,  if  place  for  repentance  be  admitted." 

I  have  given  the  whole  of  this  letter,  though 
tediously  long,  in  order  that  no  parties  may  presume 
I  am  anxious  to  suppress  the  real  facts  of  the  case. 
Ihe  Christian  champions  are  much  elated  when 
adducing  Plmy's  evidence.  They  think  it  conclusive, 
liut  what  say  the  more  enlightened]  The  German 
literati  have  long  been  of  opinion  that  this  letter  is  a 
forgery.  They  maintain  it  is  found  in  one  ancient 
copy  only,  and  not  in  the  rest. 

Dr.  J.  S.  Seinler,  of  Leipsic,  one  of  the  most  learned 
of   the   German  professors,  adduces  nine  arguments 
against  the  authenticity  of  this  letter.     His  celebrated  ^ 
work  appeared  in  1788.     It  is  entitled  ''  Neue  Ver-  " 
suche  die  Kircheuhistorie  der  ersten  Jahrunderte  mehr 
aufzuklaren."     His  arguments  upon  this  subject  will 
be  found,  vol.  1,  page  119  to  246.    Semler  was  strong- 
ly   supported    by   Corrodi,    in   his    treatise    entitled, 
"  Beytrage  zur   Beforderung  des  vernunftigen    Den- 
kens   111   der   Religion."      The   main   argument   the 


r2 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


EXTERNAL    EVIDENCE. 


73 


Christians  allcsc  in  favor  of  the   authenticity  of  this 
letter  is,  that  ir  is  cited  hy  TertuUian  and  Ensehius, 
and    that    Aldin    considers    the    MS.    containing    it, 
nearly  as  old  as  Pliny.     Now  Tertnllian  and  Knsebi- 
us   were  both  guilty  of  pions  frauds,   especially  the 
latter,   and,   moreover,   books  at  that  time   were  not 
printed,  but  written.      Every  copy  was  a  new  edition, 
in  which  the  transcriber  might  make  what  aUerations 
he  thought  tit,  few  people,  comparatively,  possessing 
them.     The   age   of   TertuUian,  or  a   little  belore  it, 
was  notoriously  the  age  of  Christian   forgery.     Nor 
was  there  any  more  dimciilty  in  the   interj)olation  of 
this  letter  than  in  the  interpolations  in  Josephus  and 
Longinus,  which,   till  withm   tliis  last  century,  have 
been   successfully  palmed   upon   the  Christian  world. 
At  present,  indeed,  when  the  character  of  the  fathers 
of   the   church,    and    their   propensity   to  lying   and 
forgery  is  universally  known  and  acknowledged,  no 
clergyman  of  eminence  will  venture  to  defend   these 
passages.     During    tlie  century  intervening  between 
Fhny^lhc  younger  and  Tertulhan— that  is,  between 
113  and  210,    a.    d.,— there  was   time   enough,  and 
opportunity  enough,  to  propagate  the  forged  copies  of 
VViny.  and  we   well    know  there  existed  the  disposi- 
tion, it  being  esteemed    ''a  virtue  to  deceive  and  lie.'* 
The  circumstances,  then,  which   lead  an   enlightened 
and  unprejudiced  inquirer  to  reject  the  boasted  tesli- 
mony  of  this  celebrated  scholar,  are— the  undeniable 
fact  that  the  first  Christians  were  the  greatest  forgers 
that  ever  existed— that   it  was  not  tlie  ignorant  and 
vulgar,    but   the    best    scliolars  who    practiced    these 
forgeries — that  religious  persecution  was  inconsistent 
witli  tlie  just  and  philosophic  character  of  the  Roman 
government— that  so  moral  and   amiable  a   |)eople  as 
the  primitive  (liristians  are  represented  by  l/icir  fol- 
lowers,  could  not  have  l>een  the  fa\st  to  provoke   the 
Roman  government  to  depart  from  its  univei*sal  max- 
im of  toiciation  and  mdiirerence,— that  such  persecu- 
♦ioii   was  quite    mcuusibiLUl    with    the    humane  and 


^1 


dignified  character  of  Pliny — that  it  is  unreasonable 
to  suppose  Christians  wtu'c  found  in  so  remote  a 
province  as  Bithynia,  ere  they  had  acquired  any 
notoriety  in  Rome — the  singular  fact  that  the  passage 
in  question  was  found  in  otic  ancient  copy  onlij,  and 
not  in  the  rest — the  declaration  of  the  German  I'Ucr- 
ati,  the  most  learned  men  in  the  world,  that  this 
epistle  is  not  genuine — the  unquestionable  fact  that 
'rertullian  and  Eusebins,  the  authorities  in  favor  of 
its  genuineness,  were  notoriously  Uam  and  impos- 
lors!  The  followiiig,  however,  is  the  main  objection 
to  the  genuineness  of  this  letter.  I  hold  it  to  be 
conclusive.  Pliny  is  made  to  say  to  Trajan,  that  the 
(/hrlstians  were  accustomed  to  meet  very  early  in  the 
morning,  and  "sing  a  hymn  to  Christ,  as  to  God.' 
Now  this  would  have  been  a  custom  of  whicli  no 
Christian  in  J^liny's  or  Trajan's  time,  would  have 
been  guilty.  They  would  have  regarded  it  with 
horror,  as  blasphemy.  The.  earliest  Christians,  were 
Jewish  Christians — the  Ebionites  and  Nazarenes. — 
Their  gospel,  seen  by  }']piphanius  and  Jerome,  as 
they  themselves  relate,  did  not  contain  the  two  first 
chaj)ters  of  Matthew.  The  early  Christians  among 
the  Jews,  did  not  believe  that  Jesus  Christ  was  any- 
thing more  than  a  mere  man.  They  rejected  with 
al)horrence  his  equality  with  C^od.  The  first  Gvnlile 
(hiostics,  the  Corinthians,  Marcicnitcs,  &€.,  did  not 
advance  the  notion  that  Christ  was  (iod,  or  equal 
with  God.  Their  gospel  was  the  .same  as  the  Ebion- 
ites in  this  respect.  The  many — the  multitude,  were, 
during  three  centuries,  in  full  persuasion  of  the  modern 
Unitarian  doctrine,  in  this  res])ect.  The  belief  of  tlic 
Divinity  of  Christ,  was  not  established  till  the  coun- 
cil of  Nice,  in  325. 

About  all  this,  I  have  no  fear  of  contradiction  from 
any  really  learned  ecclesiastic.  1  state  these  points 
as  settled  since  the  great  controversy  between  l^riest- 
Icy  and  Morsel y.  No  one,  in  the  present  day,  will 
ventuie  his  reputation  on  a  j)osiiion  .so  utterly  unien- 


74 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


75 


able  as  that  the  Christians  of  Pliny's  time,  ever 
considered  Christ  as  God,  or  ever  spoke  of  him  as  on 
an  equality  with  God.  The  passage,  therefore,  in 
question,  representing  the  early  Christians  as  wor- 
shipping Christ  as  a  God^  is,  on  the  very  face  of  it,  a 
post- Nlceiie  forgery — that  is,  written  after  the  Nicene 
council — more  than  200  years  szibsequcnt  to  the  days 
of  Pliny.  It  must  consequently  be  set  down  amongst 
the  other  pious  frauds  of  that  period. 

I  now  come  to  the  third  authority  cited  by  Christ- 
ians— Seutonius,  a  contemporary  of  Pliiiy.  We  will 
allow  the  Christians  to  make  the  best  of  this  writer, 
for  if  the  passage  be  genuine,  it  tells  very  strongly 
against  the  divine  character  of  Christianity.  If  the 
early  Christians  really  were  such  as  he  describes 
them,  it  is  quite  evident  they  had  no  more  right  to 
call  their  system  inspired,  than  the  followers  of 
Courtenay  or  Joe  Smith.  In  his  Life  of  Nero.  Seuto- 
nius thus  speaks  of  them: — "  The  Christians — a  race 
of  men  of  a  nmo  and  villanoiis — wicked  or  mafrical 
superstition^  were  visited  with  punishment."  May  I 
ask  the  Christians  if  they  deem  this  the  triic  charac- 
ter of  tlieir  predecessors  'I  If  they  do.  I  trust  they 
will  not  boast  either  of  the  "wisdom  "  or  the  "vir- 
tue of  their  ancestors."  Seutonius  has  another  pas- 
sage in  his  Life  of  Claudius,  which  is  quoted  by 
Christian  evidence-manufacturers.  Alluding  to  the 
Emperor  Claudius,  he  remarks,  "  he  drove  the  Jews 
from  Rome,  who  were  constantly  rioting^  Crestus 
being  their  leader."  The  priesthood  strain  this  into 
an  allusion  to  Christ  and  the  Christians.  Orosius,  a 
Christian  writer  of  the  5th  century,  who  quotes  tliis 
passage,  does  not  pretend,  however,  to  know  whether 
it  was  the  Christians  or  Jews  who  were  thus  ex- 
pelled ;  and  Dr.  liardner  says,  that  "  learned  men  are 
not  satisfied  that  this  relates  to  the  Christians."- — 
However,  let  the  Christians  of  our  time  have  the 
"  benefit  of  the  doubt,"  and  what  a  compliment  to 
their  leader  and  their  system  !  !  !     Here  is  Christ,  the 


I 


* 


son  of,  and  yet  co-partner  with,  God,  kicked  out  of 
Konie  as  the  poor  rioters  of  Staffordshire  and  Lan- 
cashire were  driven  from  their  localities  a  short  time 
a^o.  Are  we  to  believe  that  tlieir  founder  was  such 
a  riotous  and  disorderly  personage?  It  is  not  to  be 
wondered  at,  so  many  of  his  more  i-norant  followers 
exhibited  similar  propensities.  Had  Christ  appeared 
in  Britain  in  1842,  it  is  by  no  means  improbable  that 
he  would  have  been  incarcerated  with  the  oppressed 
and  starving  operatives  of  the  north. 

We  must  now  hasten  to  remark  upon  the  favorite 
testimony  of  the  Cliristian  evidence-makers— the  ele- 
gant and  classical  historian  Tacitus.     Few  writers  of 
ancient  Koine  have  enjoyed   more  just  celebrity  than 
us    distinguished    and    accomplished    author,    and 
therefore,   his    evidence    is    highly    esteemed    l)y    the 
Uiristiaiis      It  IS  considered  a  triumphant  answer  to 
all      unbelievers."     Certainly,    when   you   have  dis- 
posed of  Joscphus   and   Pliny,    Tacitus  is    the   onlv 
great  author    whom   Christians  will  venture   to  nuote 
as  evidence.     And  what  is  his  evidence  7     Listen    In 
ns    -Annals,"    15th   book,  chap.  44,  after  describing 
the  great  fire   at  Rome,  during   the  reign  of  Nero   he 
observes,-;'  J]ut  neither  all  the  human   help,  nor'the 
liberality  of  the  Lmperor,  nor  all  the  atonements  pre- 
sented to   the   gods,  availed  to  abate  the  infamy  he 
Jay  under  of  having  ordered  the  city  to  be  set  on  fire 
lo    suppress,    therefore,    this    common    rumor,    Nero 
procured  others  to  be  accused,  and  inflicted  exquisite 
p(uiishments  upon  the  people,  2rho  were  held  in  abhor- 
rence for  their  crimes,  and  were  commonly  lviif>wn  bv 
the  name  of  Christians,     They  had  their  denomina- 
tion  from    Christus,    who,  in   the   reign  of  Tiberius 
was   put  to   death   as  a  criminal,  by^he  Procurator 
1  ontius  riiate.      1  his  pernicious   superstition,  though 
checked  for  awhile,  broke  out  again,  and  spread  not 
only  over  .Tndea,  the  source  of  this  evil,  but  reached 
the  city  also,  whither  flow  from  all  quarters  all  things 
that    an3   vile    and    shameful,    and    where    they   find 


7G 


EXTERNAL    HIVIDENCE. 


EXTERNAL    EVIDENCE. 


77 


shelter  and  encouragement.  At  first,  they  only  were 
apprehended  wlio  confessed  themselves  of  that  sect; 
alterwards  a  vast  multitude  discovered  by  them,  aU 
of  which  were  condemned,  not  so  much  for  their 
crime  of  burning  the  city,  as  for  their  enmity  to 
mankind.  Their  execution  was  so  contrived  as  to 
expose  them  to  derision  and  contempt.  8omc  were 
covered  over  with  the  skins  of  wild  beasts,  and 
torn  to  pieces  by  dogs.  Some  were  crucified  :  otliers, 
liavuig  been  daubed  witli  combustible  materials,  were 
set  up  as  lights  in  the  night  time,  and  thus  burned  to 
death.  Nero  made  use  of  Jiis  own  garden  as  a  thea- 
tre upon  the  occasion,  and  also  exhibited  the  diver- 
sions ot  the  circus,  sometimes  standing  in  the  crowd 
as  a  spectator,  in  the  habit  of  a  charioteer,  at  other 
times,  driving  a  chariot  himself  Till,  at  length,  these 
men,  though  really  criminal,  and  deserving  exem- 
plary punishment,  began  to  be  commiserated  as  peo- 
ple who  were  destroyed,  not  out  of  regard  to  the 
public  welfare,  but  only  to  gratify  the  crucltv  of  one 
man." 

Such  is  the  celebrated  passage  of  which  we  have 
*  lieard  so  much — a  ])assage  which  we  are  told  furnish- 
es a  "  beautil'ul  coniirmation  of  Christianity."  I  deny, 
however,  that  it  conlirms  the  Christian  system:  on 
the  contrary,  it  does  the  very  reverse.  If  we  arc  to 
bchcyc  Tacitus,  so  far  from  Christianity  being  "di- 
vine," it  is  a  "pernicious  superstition;"  so  ill r  from 
Its  early  teachers  and  disciples  being  inspired,  "  they 
were  held  m  abhorrence  for  their  crimes;"  so  far  from 
the  early  Christians  endeavoring  to  do  good,  they 
were  abhorred  for  their  ''enmity  to  mankind ;''  and 
so  far  Irom  being  unjustly  punished,  "  they  were  renlty 
criniinul,  and  deservin{r  exemplary  piinisJtment.^'  If 
this  passage  proves  anythin<r,  it  proves  that  for  which 
I  am  contending,  and,  therefore,  cannot  be  taken  as  a 
conjirmatton  of  the  divinity  of  Christianity.  There 
are  strong,  exeeedin^Jy  stroncr,  reasons  for  l)elicving 
that  this  memorable  passage,  like  that  of  .losephus,  is 


y% 


an  interpolation.  These  reasons  I  shall  now  lay  be- 
fore you,  and  solicit  your  kind  attention.  The  1st  is, 
that  this  passage  z,9  iKd  quoted  by  any  of  the  Christian 
F(Uh.ers,  It  is  next  to  certain,  if  such  a  passage  had 
been  in  the  early  copies  of  Tacitus,  that  they  would 
have  quoted  it,  and  especially  if  it  be  such  a  ''beanti- 
fnV^  confirmation  of  Christianity,  as  they  were  ever 
anxious  to  obtain  all  the  evidence  possible.  So  very 
desirous  were  they  for  the  testimony  of  Pagans,  that 
they  had  no  objections  to  manufacture  such  evidence 
when  "convenient."  The  2nd  objection  is,  that  it  is 
not  quoted  by  Tertullian,  though  he  read  and  largely 
cpioted  the  works  of  Tacitus,  and  his  argument  imme- 
diately called  for  the  use  of  this  quotation  with  so 
loud  a  voice,  that  his  omission  of  it,  if  it  had  really 
existed,  amounts  to  an  extraordinary  iuq)iobabihty. — 
This  father  has  spoken  of  Tacitus,  in  a  way  that  he 
could  not  have  done  if  his  writiuiifs  had  contained  such 
a  passage.  I'he  !]rd  objection  is,  that  it  is  not  (pioted 
by  (element  Alexandnnus,  who  sot  himself  entirely  to 
the  work  of  adilucing  and  bringmg  together  all  the 
admissions  and  recognitions  which  Pagan  authors  had 
made  of  the  existence  of  Christ,  or  Christians  before 
his  time.  The  1th  objection  is,  tliat  it  has  been  no- 
where stumbled  on  l)y  the  laborious  and  all-seeking 
Eusel)ius,  who  could  by  no  possibility  have  missed  it, 
and  whom  it  would  have  saved  from  the  labor  and 
infamy  of  forging  the  passage  of  .losephus,  of  adduc- 
ing the  correspondence  of  Christ  and  Abgarus,  and 
the  Sibyliiie  verses,  and  innumerable  others  of  his 
pious  and  holy  cheats.  5th,  (and  this  is  a  most 
important  fact,)  that  there  is  no  restive  or  trace  of  its 
existence  anytvherc  in  the  irorld  before  the  iryth  cen- 
tury, when  it  was  published  in  a  copy  of  the  Annals 
of  Tacitus,  in  the  year  14(38,  by  one  .fohanues  de 
Spire,  of  Venice,  who  took  his  imprint  of  it,  from  a 
sini^le  manuscript  in  his  own  poicer  and  possession, 
and  purporting  to  be  written  in  the  8th  century ;  that 
is,  more   than  700    years  f///e/- the    time  of  Tacitus ! 

7* 


i 


78 


EXTERNAL    EVIDENCE. 


The  6th  objection,  then,  is,  that  it  rests  entirehj  upon 
the  ndehty  of  this  one  individual,  who  would  have 
every  opportunity  and  inducement  to  insert  such  an 
ujterpolation,  knowing  the  high  cliaracter  of  Tacitus, 
and  how  desirous  tlie  priesthood  were  to  procure  such 
evidence.  The  7th  objection  consists  in  the  fact  that 
the  style  of  the  passage  is  not  consistent  with  the 
usually  mild  and  classic  language  of  Tacitus.  The 
Hth  and  last,  that  Tacitus,  in  no  other  jtari  of  his 
wrUinrrs,  makes  any  allusion  to  Christ  and  Chris- 
tianity. 

These  objections  to  the  testimony  of  Tacitus,  I 
hold,  are  unanswerable.  1  challenge  the  Christians 
to  meet  them.  If  they  cannot  be  refuted,  the  Clirist- 
lan  world  have  no  evidence  to  adduce  worth  namine. 


I'y  invalidates  the  divine  character  of 
the  Christian  scheme,  but  in  all  probability— so 
probable  as  to  amount  to  a  certainty— is  as  great  a 
lorgery  as  the  rest.  While  Philo— Me  writer  who, 
above  all  others,  ought  to  have  noticed  in  detail 
lavorably  or  unfavorably,  the  doings  of  Christ  and 
his  dupes,  he  being  a  contemporary,  resident  in  the 
very  seat  of  their  movement,  and  having  devoted 
three  of  his  five  volumes  to  the  history  of  the  state 
and  sutlerings  of  the  .lews,  at  the  very  time  Christ  is 
stated  to  have  worked  supernatural  wonders,— makes 
no  mention  of  the  matter  at  all ! 

We  have,  therefore,  I  submit,  given  a  fatal  blow  to 
the  llibric  ot  external  evidence.  In  our  next  address, 
It  shall  be  razed  to  the  ground. 


i 


i 


LECTURE  FIFTH. 


EXTERNAL    EVIDENCE. 


Friends — 

The  discourse  I  rise  to  deliver,  is  the  fifth  of  a 
series  upon  the  Bible.  Few  questions  are  more 
important  or  more  interesting,  and  yet  upon  no  sub- 
ject does  there  exist  such  irreconcilable  antipathy  to 
examination.  It  is  deemed  impious,  not  laudable — 
dangerous,  not  beneficial,  to  test  the  truth  of  the 
Scriptures.  You  are  called  upon  to  concede  every- 
thing— question  nothing.  In  no  case  is  the  argument 
"made  easy," — ''it  is  so,  because  it  is  so,''  more 
legitimate.  The  Bible  is  the  Word  of  God— because 
it  is  the  Word  of  God.  This  is  the  summary  way 
in  which  the  dogmatic  Christians  wish  to  silence  the 
inquisitive  sceptic.  We  are  resolved,  however,  no 
longer  to  tolerate  such  antiquated  conceit,  but  to 
examine  with  as  much  freedom  and  indifference  the 
pretensions  of  the  Bible  as  we  would  any  other  book. 
Nay,  more ;  lor  its  pretensions  are  greater,  and,  there- 
fore, the  investigation  should  be  more  searching. 

In  our  last  address,  we  entered  upon  that  portion 
of  our  inquiry  denominated  Exter7ial  Evidence.  We 
proved,  at  the  outset,  that  such  evidence,  if  true,  is 
utterly  incompetent  to  decide  the  question  at  issue, 
for  if  it  could  be  shown,  (as  we  shall  show  in  subse- 
quent Lectures,)  that  the  internal  evidence  is  false, 
the  external  is  of  no  avail.  In  corroboration  of  that 
view,  we  cited  the  authority  of  Dr.  ('onvers  Middle- 


r' 


\ 


60 


EXTERNAL    EVIDENCE. 


ton,  Dr.  \cscimiis  Knox,  and  the  Rev.  John  \Vesley 
VVc  then  proceeded  to  demonstrate   that  the  external 
evidence,  which   tlie  Cliristians   did  adduce,  was   by 
no  means  conchisive.     On  the  contrarv,  much  of  that 
evidence  was  completely  spurious,  soi'ne  so  cniestion- 
able  as    to  be   utterly   inadmissible,    and  others   told 
a.^ainst,  rather  than  in  lavor  of  the  Christian  scheme. 
Ihc  testimony  ot  Josephus  we  proved,  in  the  caustic 
lan-nage  ol  Uishop  ^Valburton,  was  "a  rank  fonzery, 
and  a  very  stupid  one,  too.^'     Pliuy,  the  same.    ^The 
evidence  of  Seutonius,   we   remarked,  distinctly  im- 
pugned   tlie    dicinc   origin    of    Christianity.     So    did 
I  acitus,  though  there  were  insurmountablo  objections 
to  the  genuineness  of  his  evidence. 

We  now  proceed   to  meet   the  next  testimony  ad- 
duced   by    Christians— Pontius    Pilate.      For    many 
centuries,  the   testimony  of  Pilate   was  held  in  hi-h 
repute  among  the   most  learned  Christians,  being  e^'s- 
teemed  so  conclusive,  that  it  placed  all  doubt  beyond 
the  range  ot  possibility.     It  was  first  quoted  by  Justin 
Martyr,  in   the  second   century,  nearly  one   hundred 
years  after  the  death  of  Christ.     It  was  afterwards 
adduced  by  lertullian,  Eusebius,   Epiphanius,  Cliry- 
sostom   and  others,-aIl  -  Holy  Fathers,-  and.  there- 
lore,    ''all    honorable   men."      Eusebius,   of   all    the 
manufactureTs  of  "pious  frauds,"  the  most  extensive 
and  successful,  seems  perfectly  enraptured  with  the 
testimony  of   Pilate,   esteemmg  it  tlie  grand  strong- 
hold of  (  hristian  evidence.  Certainly,  if  the  testimoi^y 
ot  1  date  could   have   been  relied  on.  it  midit    have 
had  some  weight,  as  he,  above  all  others,  having  sat 
in  judgment  on   the  case,  ought  to  be  familiar  with 
the  real  facts  oi  the  matter.     Unfortunately,  however 
lor  tlie  Christian  world,  the  testimony  of  Pilate  —the 
most  direct  and  valuable   that  could  have    been  of- 
frand   "^         '^^M^l^^ce  among  the  category  of  "pious 

The  supposed  testimony  of  this  memorable  charac- 
ter, IS  contained  in  some  letters~(Fabricus,   in  his 


f 


J 


EXTERNAL    EVIDENCE. 


81 


Codex    Apocryphus,    says   five)— wliich    it  is    stated 
1  date.  111  his  oflicial  capacity  of  Governor,  addressed 
to    liberius.    Emperor  of  Rome.     In   those  epistles, 
I  date   IS   represented   as   speaking  very  favorably  of 
the  Divinity  of  C^irist,  his  miracles,  and  his  resurrec- 
tion.    The  language  in  which  these  communications 
are  expressed,  and   the    statements   therein   alfirmed, 
are  so  hyperbolical  and  absurd,  and  entirely  unsup- 
ported by  any  other  writer  or  historian  of  the  time, 
that  it  is  quite  manifest  they  are   the  mere  composi- 
tions of  those  fanatical  and  imprincipled  priests  who 
deemed  it  "  a  virtue  to  deceive  and  lie."     Permit  me 
to  supply  you  with  an  extract  or  two  from  these  rare 
productions.     Who,  I  ask,  who  was  not  too  pious  to 
think— too  rdi<rious   to  examine   for  himself,    would 
believe  that   a  Roman  Governor,    who    dcsjnsed   the 
(Jhristians,v/ouId  write  a  passage  like  the  following?— 
"  There  was,"  says  he,    alluding  to  die  crucifixion, 
"darkness  over  the  whole  eardi,   the  sun  in  the  mid- 
dle of  the  day  being  darkened,  and  the  stars  aj)pear- 
mg,    among  whose  lights  the  moon  appeared  not,  but 
as  if  turned  to  blood,  it  left  olf  shining."    He  proceeds 
to  say,   referring  to   the   resurrection,    "early  in  the 
morning  of  the  first  of  the  Sabbath,  the  resurrection  of 
Christ  was  announced  by  a  display  of  the  most  asto- 
nishing feats  of  Divine  omnipotence  ever  performed  • 
at  the  third  hour  of  the  night,  the  sun  broke  forth  with 
such    splendor    as  was  never  before    seen,    and    the 
heavens   became  enlightened  seven  times  more  than 
any  other  day."     As  a  climax  to  this  rhapsody,  he  is 
represented    as    exclaiming  that    "an   instantaneous 
chasm  took  place,  and  the  earth  opened  and  swallowed 
up  all  the  unbelieving  Jews,    their  temples  and    their 
synagogues :  all  vanished  away,  and  the  next  morniu'r 
there  was  not.  so  much  as  one  of  thein  left  in  allJcnt 
salem,   and  the  Roman   soldiers   went  stark  staring 
mad.''     Such  an  extraordinary  and  unparalleled  con- 
vulsion IS  only  mentioned  in  these  contemptible  epis- 
tles.    No  historian,  great  or  small,  who  lived  at    the 


82 


EXTERNAL    EVIDENCE. 


time,   make!?  the  least  reference  to  it.     Joseplms,  who 
flourished  at  this  period,  and  who,  as  a  Jew,  took  pe- 
cuhar  interest  in  the  welfare  of  his  countrymen,  is  per- 
fectly silent  upon  the  suhject,  which  would  have  heen 
next  to  impossible   if  such  events  really  transpired. 
The  elder  Pliny,    who,   about   the  year  7o,  wrote  the 
"History  of  his  own  time,"   in  thirty-one  books,  and 
was   the  most  celebrated  historian  of  that  period,  is 
quite  silent  upon  this  wonderful  occurrence,  which  had 
it  really  happened,  could  not  have  escaped  his  obser- 
vation.    The  younger  Seneca,  too,  a  voluminous  wri- 
ter, who  was  then  about  thirty-nine  years  of  age,  and 
must  have  been  at  Rome  at  the  time,  makes  no  men- 
tion  of    this    wonderful   phenomenon.       Gibbon  ex- 
presses the  greatest  contempt  and  indignation  at  these 
statements,  and  denounces   them  as  alike  false  and 
jnypostcrous.     It  is  clear,  therefore,  that  those  epistles 
of  Pilate,    so    highly    prized     by    that   distinguished 
forgery  manufacturer,    Kuse])ius,    is   nothing   but   a 
''cunningly  devised  fable:'  of  the  Holy  Fathers,  de- 
signed for  the  purpose  of  deluding  those  whom   they 
thought  were  too  ignorant  to  discover  their  impostures. 
I  am  happy  to  say  that  the  more  enlightened  Christian 
evidence-makers,  are  now  ashamed  of  the  audacious 
impositions  of  their  "Holy"  predecessors,  and  as  far 
as  decency  will  permit,   discard   them.     Some  of  the 
most  eminent  lOcclesiastical  historians  of  modern  times, 
Du  Pin,   of  France,  and  Lardner,  of  England,   have 
already  repudiated  these  memorable  epistles.     Du  Pin 
says,   in   the  2nd  vol.,   c.  7,  of  his  elaborate  work  on 
the  "  Scripture  Canon,"—''  We  have  in  the  Orthodox- 
ographa  next  to  the  epistle  of  Lentulus,  a  letter  at- 
tributed to  Pilate,  as  written  to  Tiebrius,  which  con- 
tains the  same  things;  bat  it  is  difficidt  to  determine 
Avhether  this  letter  was  extant  in  Eiisebius's  time,  or 
whether  it  was  not  forged  from  his  narration.     Let 
this  be  how  it  will,  there  are  several  learned  men  who 
question   the  genuineness  of  this  history,  which  has 
very  little  probabihty  at  the  bottom  of  it.'    For  how  is 


' 


EXTERNAL    EVIDENCE. 


83 


it  likely  that  Pilate  should  write  such  things  to  Tibe- 
rius of  a  man,  whom  he  himself  had  condemned  to 
death  ?  and  though  he  might  have  done  so,  yet  is  it 
probable  that  Tiberius  should  have  proposed  to  the 
Senate,  the  placing  of  such  a  man  among  the  number 
of  the  Gods,  upon  the  bare  relation  of  a  governor  7 
And  if  he  had  proposed  any  such  thing,  who  can  im- 
agine that  the  Senate  would  have  submitted  to  it  7 
Wherefore,  though  we  cannot  absolutely  charge  this 
narration  with  falsehood,  yet  it  may,  at  least,  pass  for 
a  doubtful  piece."  Yes,  very  doubtful,  Dr.  Du  Pin ! 
But  his  brother  Christian  and  historian,  Dr.  Lardner, 
does  much  more  \\\dXi  doubt ;  he  declares  that  "the 
acts  of  l^ontius  Pilate  and  his  letter  to  Tiberius,  which 
we  now  have,  are  not  genuine,  but  tnanifestly  spuri- 
ous V  (Vol.  1,  c.  2,  p.  316,  Jewish  and  Heathen  Testi- 
monies.) So  much  then,  for  this '•  glorious"  evidence 
in  favor  of  Christianity. 

Now  for  another  piece  of  evidence  equally  "  glori- 
ous V  It  is  that  of  Publius  Lentulus,  Roman  (jovern- 
or — the  predecessor  of  Pilate,  as  procurator  of  Judea. 
The  testimony  of  this  individual,  was,  at  one  time, 
the  peculiar  favorite  of  the  orthodox  Christians. 
Living,  as  he  did,  during  the  early  career  of  Christ, 
and  officiatuig  as  governor  of  the  very  locality  m  which 
his  movements  are  said  to  have  occurred,  his  evidence, 
of  course,  was  deemed  pre-eminently  important.  It 
will  be  found  in  the  History  of  Christ,  as  originally 
written  by  Zavier.  It  is  in  the  form  of  a  letter,  ad- 
dressed as  follows  :  "  Lentulus,  Prefect  of  Jerusalem, 
to  the  Senate  and  people  of  Rome,  greeting."  The 
letter  proceeds  to  furnish  us  with  a  most  glowing  de- 
scription of  the  person  of  Christ,  which,  if  correct, 
would  lead  us  to  believe  that  he  was  really  a  hand- 
some fellow.  The  letter  commences,  "At  this  time 
there  hath  appeared,  and  still  lives,  a  man  endowed 
with  great  powers,  whose  name  is  Jesus  Christ.  Men 
say  that  he  is  a  mighty  prophet — his  disciples  call  him 
the  Son  of  God.     He   restores  the  dead  to  life,   and 


{W^% 


84 


EXTERNAL    EVIDENCE. 


heals  the  sick  from  all   sorts  of  ailments  and  diseases. 
He  is  a  man  of  statnre,  proportionably  tall,   and  his 
cast  of  countenance  has  a  certain  severity  in  it,  so  full 
of  effect,  as  to  induce  beholders  to  love,  and  still  yet  to 
fear  him.     His  hair  is  of  the  color  of  wine,    us  far  as 
to    the    bottoin   of  his    ears,    without     radiation   and 
straight,    and    from  the  lower  part  of  his  ears  it  is 
citrled  down  to  his  shoulders,    and  bright,    and  hangs 
downwards  from  his  shoulders,  [how  precise  !J    At  the 
top   of  liis    head  it  is  parted  after  the  fashion  of  the 
Nazarenes  :  his  forehead  is  smooth  and  clear,  and  his 
face  withovt  a  pitnple,  adorned   with  a  certain  tem- 
perate   redness,   his   countenance    gentlemanlike    and 
agreeable,  liis  nose  and  month  nothing  amiss,  his  beard 
thick,  and  divided  into  two  banchcs,  of  the  same  color 
as  his  hair,  his  eyes  bine  and  nncominonhj  bright.     In 
reproving  iind  rebuking,  he  is  formidable  ;  in  teaching 
and  exhorting,  of  a  bland  and  agreeable  tongue.      He 
has  a  u'ondcrfnl  grace  of  person,  united  with  serious- 
ness.    No  one  hath  ever  seen  him  .97// //c;  hutireepin:^^, 
indeed  they  have.     He  hath  a  lengthened  stature  of 
body,  his  hands  are  straight  and  turned  up,  his  amis 
are  delectable.     In  speaking,  deliberate  and'slow,  and 
sparing   of  his    conversation — the   most   beautiful  of 
couyitenance  among  the  sons  of  men.''' 

Who  after  this  will  not  be  enamored  of  Christiani- 
ty? lam  sin-e  it  must  be  a  matter  of  unspeakable 
lamentation  that  some  of  the  leading  Christian  evi- 
dence-manufacturers of  our  day,  are  gVnving  dissatis- 
fied v/ith  this  flattering  testimony  of  Lentidus,  and 
endeavor,  very  ungraciously,  to  throw  it  overboard. 
The  French  ecclesiastical  historian,  l)u  Pin,  regard- 
less of  the  admiration  of  his  forefathers,  disposes  of 
this  celebrated  letter  in  the  following  slashing  and 
unceremonious  style:—-'  There  is  no  need  of  showing 
the  falsity  of  a  letter  attributed  to  Lentulus,  written 
to  the  Senate  and  people  of  Rome,  concerning  the  ac- 
tions of  Jesus  Christ,  since  the  forgery  of  it  is  self- 
evident."    In  what  an  off-hand  manner  these  reverend 


EXTERNAL    EVIDENCE. 


85 


if 


historians  speak  of  the  forgeries  of  their  pious  Christian 
forefathers !  It  appears  to  be  nothing  to  commit  a 
forgery — and  especially  a  pious  one — designed  for  the 
purpose  of  promoting  religion.  Well  might  Mosheim 
say  that  the  holy  Fathers  deemed  isuch  individuals 
"  deserving  rather  of  commendation  than  censure.' 
But  Dli  Pin  continues,  "  They  make  Lentulus  to  write 
in  the  character  of  governor  of  Jerusalem,  though  he 
never  had  that  employ.  It  is  directed  to  the  Senate 
and  people  of  Rome,  whereas  after  the  Commonwealth 
v/as  changed  into  a  monarchy,  the  Governors  usually 
wrote  to  the  Emperors.  That  which  is  contained  in 
tliat  letter  is  ridiculous :  therein  is  a  mean  and  con- 
temptible descrii)tion  of  the  person  of  Jesus  Christ, 
[not  very  contemptible,  I  presume]  therein  it  is  said 
that  our  Saviour  had  light  colored  hair,  long  and  loose 
after  the  mode  of  the  Nazarenes.  The  style  wherein 
it  is  written  does  not  suit  with  the  purity  and  polite- 
ness of  Augustus's  time ;  in  a  word,  not  one  of  the 
ancients  hath  made  mention  of  that  letter."  (Vol.  2, 
c.  7,  sec.  3,  Complete  History  of  the  Canon,  &c.) — 
Then  I  presume,  Dr.  Du  Pin,  it  must  go  with  the  rest 
of  the  '•  pious  frauds  !  "  This  really  beautirul  descrip- 
tion of  the  "  Saviour  of  the  world,"  which  so  bewitch- 
ed our  progenitors,  must  really  sink  into  oblivion. — 
What  a  pity  !     O!  cruel  Dr.  Du  Pin  ! 

We  will  now  briefly  remark  upon  the  testimony  of 
the  Roman  historian,  Phlegon.  I  need  say  but  little 
respecting  his  evidence,  as  the  more  learned  Christians 
now  acknovvledge  it  to  be  a  stupid  forgery.  But  even 
if  true,  it  is  of  little  moment,  the  following  brief  pas- 
sage being  all  that  is  said  upon  the  subject : — ^'  In  the 
fourth  year  of  the  two  hundred  and  second  Olympiad, 
there  was  an  eclipse  of  the  sun,  greater  than  any  ever 
known  before,  and  it  was  ni^ht  at  the  sixth  hour  of 
the  day,  so  that  even  the  stars  appeared,  and  there 
was  a  great  earthquake  in  Bithynia  that  overthrew 
several  houses  in  Nice."  Gibbon  has  sarcastically 
observed — "  The  celebrated    passage  in  Phlegon.   is 

8 


8G 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


87 


now  wisely  abandoned."  Very  wisely,  indeed  !  and  I 
doubt  not  the  Christian  priesthood  will  find  it  equally 
*'  wise  "  to  abandon  the  rest. 

I  now  come   to  consider  the   testimony  of  the  cele- 
brated opponent  of  Christianity,   Celsus.       He  flour- 
ished towards  the  middle  of  the  second  century.     He 
was  one  of  tlie  most  distinguished  philosophers  of  his 
day,  and  combatted  the  pretensions  of  the  early  Chris- 
tians with  consummate   ability.      He  wrote  a  very 
elaborate   work,   entitled,    "The  True  Word,"   as  an 
expose  of  Christiainty,    which  was  answered  by  the 
Christian  Father  Origen.     We  are  informed  by  Chris- 
tian evidence-manufacturers  that  in  this  work  Celsus 
argues  as  if  all  the  events  recorded  in  the  Scriptures 
had   really    transpired,    but    denies   that   they    were 
brought  about   through  divine  interposition.     He  be- 
lieved they  were  produced  by  magic,  as  the  tricks  ot 
the    Egyptian    priesthood,    from   whom,    he   affirms, 
Christ  learned  the   secret  art  of  imposture.       Origen 
tells  us  that  Celsus    admitted  Christ   to  have    lived 
only  a  few  years  before, — was  born  of  a  virgin, — that 
angels  appeared  to  Joseph, — that  the  Holy  (ihost  de- 
scended oi\  Jesus   like  a  dove  when  he  was  baptized 
by  John,  and  that  a  voice   appeared  declaring  him  to 
be  the  Son  of  God.     Now  1  ask  upon  what  authority 
are  we  to  believe  that  Celsus  admits  that  such   things 
were  mentioned  in  his  time  ]       Have  we  tlie  works  of 
Celsus  to  consult  7     Confessedly  not.     We  have  only 
those  portions  which  Origen,   his  antagonist,   thought 
fit  to  furnish.       The  works  of  Celsus  were  destroyed 
by  the  Christians,   publicly  hurnt^  a  fact  which   will 
ever  remain   an  indelible   stigma  upon  the  early   pro- 
pounders  of  Christianity.     The   testimony,    therefore, 
of  Celsus  rests  solely  upon  the  ipse  dixit  oi  Origen. — 
And  who  is  he  /     An  honest  man  ?  one  upon   whom 
we  can  place  reliance?  one   Avho   would  not  feel  in- 
terested  in    falsifying  tiie   writings  of  Celsus?    who 
would  not  give  us  an  ex-parte  statement,  but  just   the 
bare  facts  and  no  more?    By  no  means.    On  the  con- 


I 


trary,  he  was  one  of  those  men  who  "deemed  it  a 
virtue  to  deceive  and  lie."  And,  moreover,  he  was 
the  acknowledged  adversary  of  Celsus ;  which  fact 
alone  would  induce  him  to  take  every  unfair  advan- 
tage, and  to  represent  his  opponent's  meaning  as 
would  best  suit  his  purpose. 

Allow  me,  my  friends,  to  remind  you  of  the  real 
character  of  Origen,  as  given  in  my  third  discourse, 
when  developing  the  conduct  of  the  early  Christian 
Fathers.  Bishop  Horsely,  in  his  celebrated  reply  to 
Priestley,  says  that  Origen  '*  was  not  incapable  of  as- 
serting in  argument  what  he  believed  not^  and  that  a 
strict  regard  to  truth  in  disputation  icas  not  one  of  the 
virtues  of  his  character^''''  and  that  "  the  time  was, 
when  the  practice  of  using  imjustifiahlt  means  to 
serve  a  good  cause  was  openly  avowed,  and  Origen 
himself  was  amongst  its  defenders."  1  spurn,  then, 
with  scorn  and  contempt  the  authority  of  such  a  man. 
I  denounce  him  as  an  impostor — though  he  was  a 
Christian ;  a  rogue — though  he  was  a  saint. 

Further.  Looking  at  the  subject  apart  from  the 
dishonesty  of  Origen,  the  testimony  of  Celsus,  accord- 
ing to  all  legitimate  ratiocination,  is  altogether  inad- 
missible. It  is  based  upon  what  logicians  term  a 
petitio  principii — a  begging  of  the  question — proving 
a  position  by  that  which  is  denied.  In  this  case  it  is 
establishing  Christian  statements,  by  Christian  state- 
Tnents — a  modus  operandi  which  cannot  be  tolerated 
in  an  examination  like  the  present. 

It  may  not  be  uninteresthig  to  lay  before  you  a  few 
of  the  objections  which  Origen  says  Celsus  alleged 
against  the  Christian  system.  Apostrophising  Christ, 
Origen  represents  Celsus  as  asking — "What  need  was 
there  for  carrying  thee,  while  an  infant,  into  Egypt, 
that  thou  mightest  not  be  slain,  for  it  did  not  become 
God  to  be  afraid  ?  And  now  an  angel  comes  from 
heaven  to  direct  you  and  your  relations  to  flee  into 
Egypt,  lest  you  should  be  taken  up  and  put  to  death, 
as  if  the  great  God  who  had  already  sent  two  angels 


88 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE 


EXTERNAL    EVIDENCE. 


80 


upon  your  account,  could  not  have  preserved  yoii   hi, 
yi^^on  m  salety  at  home  !  "     Alluding  to  thl  lligh^ 
of  Christ  from  his   pursuers,   he  says,    -  Christ  was 
caugiit  basely  lurking  and  ily.ng,    being  betrayed   by 
those  ^WIOln  he  chilled  Ins  disciples."     ^fpeaking  of  h,s 
crucifixion,  he  observes,   -  If  not    before,  why  did  he 
uoi  7101C,  at  least,  exert  Ins  divinity,  and  deliver  him- 
self from  tins   ignominy,  and   treat  those    as  they  de- 
served    who   behaved    ignominiously    both    towards 
Inmself  and  Ins  father  l  "     He  further  remarks,  -  You 
say  that  wh(3ii  you  was  washed  by  John,  there   licrht- 
ed  upo.i  you  the  appearance  of  a  bird.      What  credit- 
able witness  has  said  that  he  saw  this,    or  heard    the 
voice  from  heaven  declare  you  to  be  the  8on  of  Cod 
except  yourself  ?  "     Again  he  observes,  "  Well,  then 
let  us  grant  that  all  these  things   were  done  by  you  • 
snnilar  impostures  were  done  by  the  Egyptians,   and 
because  /A^y  do  such  things,  must  we  therefore  esteem 
hem   to  be  Gods  sons?  or  must  we   not  rather   say 
that    hey  were  the   artifices  of  wicked  and  miserable 
men  /    Celsiis  also  objected  that  '^  no  wise  and  learned 
men  were  admitted  to  the  mysteries  of  their  religion  • 
ct  no  man  come  that  is  learned,  wise,  or  prudent^  (for 
these  things  they  accounted  evil  and  unlawful,)  but  if 
any  be  unlearned— an  inlant  or  an  idiot,  let  him  ap- 
pear and  welcome;    thus  openly  declaring  that  none 
but  fools  or  such  as  are  devoid  of  sense  and   reason, 
slaves,  silly  women,   and  little  children,  are  fit   disci- 
ples for   the  God  they  worship.     We    may    sec    these 
irilling   and     mountebank   impostors   brairgincr  jrroat 
things  to  the  vvlnar^  not  in  the  presence  and  companv 
01  wise  men   (for  that  they  dare  not,)  but  wherever 
they  espy  a  flock  of  boys,  slaves,  and  weak  silly  peo- 
ple, tiere  they  crowd  in  and  boast  themselves." 

Celsus,  says  Origen,  further  observes,  and,  I  must 
say,  it  appears  much  like  the  truth—"  The  mother  of 
Jesus  bcmg  great  with  child,  was  put  away  by  the 
carpenter  who  had  espoused  her,  he  havin-  convict- 
ed  her  of  adultery  with  a  soldier  named  Pantharas. 


% 


% 


Then,  having  been  put  out  of  doors  by  her  husband, 
she  wandered  about  in  a  shameful  manner,  till  she 
brought  forth  Jesus,  in  an  obscure  place  ;  and  that  he, 
being  m  want,  served  in  ]::gypt  for  a  livelihood,  and 
having  there  learned  some  charms,  such  as  the  Egyp- 
tians are  fond  of,  he  returned  home,  and  then,  valu- 
ing himself  upon  those  charms,  he  set  himself  up  for 
a  god."  ^ 

1  could  give  you  more  of  Celsus' s  objections,  which 
display  no  little  ability  and  acumen,  but  my  time  will 
not  permit;    and,   moreover,  it   would  be    somewhat 
irrelevant   to   the   immediate  (piestion    in    debate.      I 
hasten  to  expose  the  alleged  testimony  of  another  ce- 
lebrated   opponent    of  Christianity — Porphyry,    who 
flourished  about  a  century  after  Celsus.     He  was  a 
philosopher  of  the  Platonic' school,  and  a  man  of  ex- 
traordinary talent,  learning,  and  virtue.      He  -was  em- 
inent hi  all  the  departments  of  knowledge— literary, 
historical,  and   philosophical.     As  a  writcu-  his  styi(; 
was  singularly  elegant,  dignified,  and  chaste— a  very 
pleasing  contrast  to  that  of  his  pious  adversaries.     S> 
renowned   was  he  for  his  probity  and  moralitv,    that 
he  was  surnamed  "The  Virtuoiis "— an    appellation 
which  few  of  the  Christian  fathers  could  justly  claim. 
Dr.   J  Gardner,   a  Christian^    says  of  Porphyry,    the 
Infidel,  Vol.  3,  page  12  1,  of  his  Jewish  and  Heathen 
Testimonies,    and  this  is  one  of  the  most  glorious   in- 
stances  of  disinterested   humanity  on  record — "Por- 
phyry, as    Eunapius  assures  us,  had   a  wife  named 
Marcella,    a  widow,  with  five  children,  to   whom  he 
ascribed  one  of  his  books,  in  which   lie  says   he  mar- 
ried  her   not  for  the  sake  of  having  children    by  lier 
himself,  but  that  he  miglit  educate  the  children  which 
she  had    by  a    former  liusl)and,  who  was  his  friend. 
Which  showed,   (says  the  Dr.)  a  virtuous  and  gener- 
ous disposition.     Nor,  indeed,   (continues  the  Dr.)  do 
we  meet  with  any  reflection   made  upon   his  condu;  t. 
Cyrill,  of  Alexandria,    in  his  answer  to  Julian,  makes 
honorable  mention  of  Marcella,  as  a  woman  of  a  phi- 

8* 


90 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


losophical  turn  of  mind,  and  for  that  reason  esteemed 
by  Porphyry."  Such  was  the  great  opponent  of  Chris- 
tianity. How  different  to  the  Bible-heroes  and  Bible- 
defenders  !  Let  me  not  liear  again  that  impudent  as- 
sumption of  the  priesthood— that  no  Infidel  can  be  a 
good  man. 

About  the  year  250,  Porphyry  pu])hshed  a  very  vo- 
huuinous  work,  (30  vols.)  in  refutation   and  exposure 
of  the  Christian   system.     It   produced,  as  miglit  be 
presumed  from  the  high  character  and  attanmients  of 
the  writer,  a  strong  sensation,  so  much  so,   that  the 
poor   holy  fathers  were  quite  friglitened   from   their 
propriety.     Answer  it  they  could   not.     What,   then, 
must  they  do?     O!  the  priesthood  were  not  long  in 
devising  a  scheme  which  should  refute  the  writings  of 
Porphyry  most  effectively.     Having,  by  this  time,  in- 
gratiated themselves  into  the  good  graces  of  the  Em- 
peror Theodosius,  whom  they  were  in  the  habit  of 
addressing  in  the  fulsome  language  of  "Theodosius 
the  great !"—"' Theodosius  the   wise  .'"—Theodosius 
the  impartial !"  &c.,  they  prevailed  upon   that  fanati- 
cal   despot    to  issue  a  decree  against  the  writings   of 
this  enlightened  and  good  man;  and,  while  they  were 
doing,  they  deemed  it  advisable  to  complete  the  busi- 
ness, by  including  the  writings  of  every  individual  who 
had  had  the   ^'- aialanty'^  and    ^^  impictif^   to  ojxpose 
Christianity.     The  works  of  Porphyry,  and  all  other 
heretics,  were  thus  publicly  burnt  in  the  market-place. 
The  following  is  an  extract  from  the  decree,  as  given 
by    Dr.    Lardner,  Vol.  3,    page  111:—'' We   decree, 
therefore,  that  all  writings  whatever,  which  Porphy- 
ry, or  any  one  else,  hath  written  against  the  Christian 
religion,   in   the  possession  of  whomsoever  they  shall 
be  found,  shall  be  committed  to  the  fire  !  for  we  would 
not  sufltr  any  of  these  things  so  much  as  to  come  to 
men's  ears,  which  tend  to  provoke  God  to  wrath,  and 
to   offend  the   minds   of  the  pious."     O!   kind    and 
generous  Christians  !     To  cap   the  climax,   the  same 
decree  proceeds  to  enforce  a  belief  in  that  silly   doc- 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


91 


trine,  the  Trinity,  and  declares  that  if  any  person  will 
not   believe  it,    "that   besides   the    condemnation  of 
divine  justice,  they  must   expect    to   suffer    the  severe 
penalties  which  our   authorities,    guided    by  heavenly 
wisdom,  may  think  proper  to  inflict  upon  them."     O  ! 
those  were  glorious  days  for  the  priesthood  !     What  a 
pity  we  cannot  have  a  "  revival  !"       How  lamentable 
that  the  writings  of  an  Owen,  a  Volney,  a  Voltaire,  a 
Paine,  a  Gibbon,  and  a  Hume,  should  be  allowed  "to 
come  to  men's  ears,  provoke  God  to  wrath,  and  oflcnd 
the  minds  of  the  pious  !"      Why  are  they   not  burnt 
publicly  in  our  market-places?     Would   it  not   le   a 
"glorious"  sight  to  behold  your  Carlton  Hill,  or  Ar- 
thur's Seat,  blazing  with  the   writings   of  these  great 
and  good  men  ?     But,  alas  !  those  days   are   gone   by, 
A  new  era  has  dawned  upon  us.      Thanks  to  The  glo- 
rious advancement  of  mind  and  civilization.     Thanks 
to  the  progress  of  knowledge  as  diffused  by  our  Me- 
clianic's  Institutions,  our  Lyceums,  our  Halls  of  Sci- 
ence.    Thanks  to  the  mighty   power  of  the  printing 
press.     O !  it  arose,   and  priestcraft   trembled.      The 
rusty  chains  of  mental  bondage  fell  from  their  hands, 
and  the  bright  spirit  of  free  inquiry  flew  from  their  iron 
grasp,  arousing  the  intellect  of  the  world  from  its  de- 
basing slumbers !     Dr.   Jortin,    in    his    Ecclesiastical 
History,  openly  charges  the  fathers  with  the  common 
practice  of  perverting,   defacing,  and   destroying  the 
works  of  their  adversaries,   and  even   those  of  each 
other. 

To  show  the  tact  displayed  by  Porphyry,  in  his 
opposition  to  the  Christian  fathers,  I  will  give  you  a 
few  specimens  of  his  style.  "If,"  says  he,  "Christ 
be  the  way  of  salvation,  the  truth,  and  the  life,  and 
*hey  only  who  believe  in  him  can  be  saved,  what  be- 
come of  the  men  who  lived  before  his  coming?"  A 
rather  awkward  question,  and  it  is  not  to  be  wondered 
at  that  the  priesthood  found  it  easier  to  burn  it,  than 
to  answer  \i.  "Some,"  says  Porphyry,  aUuding  to 
the  Christian  fathers,  more  especially  Origen,  "deter- 


92 


EXTERNAL    EVIDKNCE. 


EXTERNAL   KVIDENCE. 


93 


mined  not  to  see  the  depravity  of  the  Jewish  scriptures, 
but  to  find  out  a  sohition  of  objections  that  nuiy  be 
brought  against  them,  have  adopted  forced  interpreta- 
tions, inconsistent  in  themselves,  and  unsuitable  to 
those  wntiuirs,  and  such  as  should  not  only  be  a  vin- 
dication  of  these  absinditios,    but    alford   bkewisc    a 

recommendation  of  their  own  particular  opinions.'* 

He  says,    "Origen,  who   was  a  (^reek,  and  educated 
m  ^reek  sentiments,    Jearned   from  the  (.'rccians   the 
aUegorical  method  of  cxplainini:  the  Greek  mystcrips, 
which   he  cunningly   apphiMJ    to  Jewish   Scriptures.'^ 
The    12th   book  of  Porphyry's,   was   written   against 
the  book  of  Daniel,  whicii  he  states  was  not  written 
by  him    whose  name  it  bears,    l)iit  by  anotluM'   who 
hved   in  Judea   in   the  time  of  Antiochns,    surnamed 
MpiHiamus,   and   that   the  book   of  Daniel   docs  not 
foretell    things  fo  romc,  but  relates  trhal  had  alnadij 
hapftmcd!    A  curious  wiiy  oi' jjro/,hf  r,/{n";  ccMtainlv' 
l^)r])hyry  again  observes,   ^'The  (  hristians  fnid    fault 
with   sacred  rights  and   sacrilices,  and  incense,  and 
other  things  in  which  the  worshij)  of  tem[)les  consists. 
And  yet  they  allow  that  this  kind  of  worship   bc^aa 
in   ancient  times  /ji/ /he  appo'nitmenf,  of  God.    who  is 
also  re])resented  as  wanting  lirst  fruits."       He   refers 
to  (;enesis,  c.  4,  v.  3,  as  proof    'MJIirist,"   says  he, 
''  threatens  everlasting  punishmcMit  to   those  who  do 
not  believe  in  him,  and  yet  in  another   place  he  says, 
'  W  ith  wliat  measure  you  meet,  it  shall  be  meeted  to 
you  again,'  which  is  nbsurd  and  contradictory." 

I  will  now  remark  u}>on  what  is  called  the  evidence 
of  Porphyry  in  favor  of  Christianity.  The  "Holy 
Fathers,"  having  so  adm'naUij  disposed  of  the  ircnuine 
writings  of  that  powerful  aut'hor,  thought  it  would  bo 
a  capital  hit  if  they  were  to  get  up  a  work  in  Poii)hy- 
ry's  name,  containing  something  favorable  to' Chris- 
tianity. The  idea  was  no  sooner  suggested  than 
realized.  To  manufacture  a  '-pious  fraud"  was  a 
'•virtue,"  and,  therefore,  during  the  days  of  that  re- 
spec  table  forgery-maker,  Euscbius,  a  work  appeared 


'»! 


entitled  the  "Philosophy  of  Oracles,''  purporting  to 
be  written  by  Porphyry.  This  work  contained  many 
expressions  higlily  complimentary  to  Christians,  a  few 
of  which  werci  the  following: — "What  we  are  going 
to  say,  may  perhaps  apj>ear  to  some  a  paradox,  for 
theCiods  (meaning  the  heathen  (»ods)  declared  (iirist 
to  be  a  person  moiit  plous^  and  became  immortal — ■ 
moreover  they  speak  of  him  honorably. -"^  Again  the 
Oracle  says,  ''He  (Christ)  was.  therefore,  a  pious  per- 
son, and  went  to  heaven,  as  vioas  prrsoas  do^  for 
which  cause  you  ought  not  to  speak  evil  of  him." — 
"I'lx^se  j>assages  were  seized  upon  by  the  Christian 
Fathers  with  the  most  exepiisite  exultation,  and  adduc- 
ed as  a  triumphant  evidence  in  favor  of  their  system. 
Kusebiiis,  as  usual,  was  in  exslacies  upon  the  subject, 
and  refers  to  the  passage  in  the  following  terms:  '*  We 
will  not  insist  upon  the  testimony  of  fricmls,  which 
might  be  of  little  value,  [certainly  not,  if  they  were 
like  him. ]  but  those  of  strangers,  not  of  our  body.  And 
of  all  the  (;<reek  historians  and  philosophers  that  ever 
were,  none  can  be  more  fitly  alleged  than  the  very 
friend  of  demons,  (Porphyry,),  who  in  our  time  has 
gaiiHHl  so  much  re])utation  by  the  falsehoods  he  has 
l)ublislied  against  us.  In  the  work  v/hich//c  has  writ 
of  the  philosophy,  from  Oracles,  he  has  made  a  col- 
lection of  the  Oracles  of  Apollo  and  the  other  (»ods, 
and  good  demons."  Fabricus,  Dr.  Gregory  Sharpe, 
Dr.  Chapman,  and  Dr.  Macknight,  triumphantly  refer 
as  evidence  to  this  unblushing  forgery.  This  "  Phil- 
osophy of  Oracles,"  however,  like  the  rest  of  the 
'•  pious  fraud.s,"  cannot  stand  the  scrutiny  of  honest 
criticism.  The  Christian  historian,  Du  Pin,  is  ashamed 
[of  it,  though  he  endeavored  to  palliate  the  conduct  of 
Kusebius.  But  Dr.  Lardner  is  the  Christian  who  ef- 
fectually disposes  of  this  infamous  fraud.  In  his 
"Jewish  and  Heathen  '^I'esti monies,"  he  discusses  the 
subject  at  great  length,  and  in  page  2P)and  220,  con- 
cludes his  arguments  as  follows: — "The  conclusion 
to  be  made  from  the   whole  is,   that  it   x^nut  a   work 


b 


94 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


EXTERNAL  EVIDENCE. 


95 


of  Porphyry's,  a  heathen  philosopher,  and  an  enemy 
to  Clinstianity,  but  a  Christum,  and  a  Patron  of 
Christianity!  !  !  "  ''  It  is  the  artifice  or  forrrcry  of 
some  Clirjstian,  designed  and  contrived  to  save  the 
interests  of  Christianity  in  general,  and  possibly  hlvc- 
wise  of  some  particular  notion  of  tbe  author  itself' 
Alluding  to  the  priest  who  forged  it,  the  Dr.  observes, 
page  221,  "having  formed  a  design  to  exhibit  a  cor- 
rect testimony  in  behalf  of  Christianity,  in  the  name 
of  some  learned  Heathen,  and  to  bring  into  it  oracular 
answers  of  Heathen  deities,  he  supposed  that  no  fitter 
name  could  be  taken  than  that  of  Porphyry,  who  was 
in  great  repute  for  leariting^  and  who  had  published 
the  bitterest  invectives  aganist  Jews  and  Christianity, 
and  the  strongest  arguments  that  have  ever  been  al- 
leged against  the  Scriptures,  and  he  hoped  by  this 
work,  to  overthrow  Porphyry's  long  work  against  the 
< Jiristians,  which  had  done  so  much  mischief" 

Such  my  friends,  is  the  history  of  this  audacious 
piece  of  imposture  so  often  boasted  as  a  triumphant 
admission  of  the  divinity  of  the  Christian  scheme.— 
It  is  quite  equal  to  the  rest  of  the  pious  forgeries  whicli 
I  have  exhibited  in  my  last  three  addresses. 

VVe  have  now  reviewed,  at  length,  the  external  evi- 
dence usually  adduced  by  Christians  in  confirmation 
of  their  system.  I  observed,  at  the  close  of  my  last 
discourse,  that  the  facts  1  had  then  submitted,  gave  a 
latal  Shrek  to  the  fabric  of  Christian  evidences,  and 
that,  on  this  occasion,  I  should  endeavor  to  raze  it  to 
the  ground.  1  ask,  respectfully,  is  it  not  fairly  demol- 
ished? \\here  is  the  person  who  will  attempt  to  prop 
It  up  7  \\  hat  is  the  whole  of  this  evidence  but  a  mass 
of  perversion  and  fraud  7  Were  it  necessary  I  could 
tell  you  ot  other  forgeries,  of  the  forgery  of  the  cor- 
respondence between  King  Abgarus  and  Christ— the 
torgery  of  the  Sibyline  verses  — the  forgery  of  the 
works  of  Hystaspes  and  Trismigistus— the  forgery  of 
the  correspondence  between  Paul  and  Seneca,  A:c., 
&c.     But  1  forbear,  as  the  Christian  priesthood  them- 


selves are  now  ashamed  of  them.  My  friends,  was 
such  evidence  adduced  in  favor  of  the  divinity  of  any 
other  book,  it  would  excite  unspeakable  disgust  and 
derision  in  the  mind  of  every  enlightened  and  philo- 
sophic inquirer.  I  make  not  these  statements  to  irri- 
tate my  Christian  opponents,  but  to  induce  them  to 
open  their  eyes  to  the  scene  of  delusion  and  imposture 
in  which  they  have  been  so  long  confined.  Let  them 
look  beyond  the  boundaries  of  their  narrow  prejudices, 
and  contemplate  the  illimitable  field  of  inquiry.  Let 
tiiem  look  for  truth,  not  merely  within  the  little  con- 
fines of  their  own  dark  creeds,  and  inexplicable  dog- 
mas, but  •' wherever  it  can  be  found,"  for  as  Moore 
exclaims — 

^^  When  from  the  lips  of  truth,  one  mighty  breath, 
Shall,  like  a  whirlwind,  scatter  in  its  breeze, 
The  whole  dark  pile  of  human  mockeries ; 
Then  shall  the  reign  of  mind  commence  on  earth, 
And  starting  fresh  as  from  a  second  birth, 
Man,  in  the  sunshine  of  the  world's  new  spring, 
Shall  walk  transparent  like  some  holy  thing. '' 

For  the  information  of  the  reader,  I  should  wish  to 
state  that  the  best  works  to  consult  in  discussing  the 
Lxternal   Evidence  of  Christianity,  are  the  following: 
The  Bibliotheca  of  Fabricus,  the  small  work  of  T^ishop 
Casiiis    on  the   Canon,    in  quarto,    the   translation  of 
Lewis  Ellis  Du  Pin's   Ecclesiastical  History,  the  Ec- 
clesiastical History  of  Tillemont,  the  work  of  Basnage 
on  the  Jews,    the  Ecclesiastical  Histories  of  Mosheim 
and  .fortin,   and    the   Dissertations  of  the  former,  but 
especially,    the    learned   works   of  those   really   able 
divines,  the  Rev.   Jeremiah    .Tones,— ''New  and   full 
method  of  settling  the  canonical  authority  of  the  New  ' 
Testament,"  printed  at  the  Clarendon  press,  Oxford, 
1798,  in  three  vols,   octavo;  and    the   great   work   of 
Hr.  Nathaniel  Lardner.   on  the  credibility  of  the  Gos- 
pel   History,  &c.,   in  eleven  vols,  octavo,  1798.     The 
works  of  Dr.  Priestley,  in  his  controversy  with  Hors- 
ley,  may  also  be  consulted  with  advantage. 


96 


EXTERNAL    EVIDENCE. 


\Vc  close  this  part  of  our  subject,  witli  a  few  ex- 
tracts from  the  writings  of  decided  and  consistent 
Protrstants  : — 

"  We  have  no  revealed  rule  wliich  will    ascertain 
with  moral  certainty  which  doctrines  are  riglit  and 
which   are  wrong  — that  is,  as  they  arc  known  to 
(iod.*'     ''Salvation  therefore  cannot  depend  on  Or- 
tliodoxy;  it  cannot  consist  in  a])stract  doctrines,  about 
which  men  of  equal  abilities,  virtue  and  sincerity  are, 
and   have  always  been  divided."     ^*  No  error  on  ab- 
stract doetrines  can  be  heresy,  in  the  sense  of  a  wrong 
belief  which  endangers  the  soul."'     (Rev.  J.   Blanco 
\>Jiite  on   Jferesy.)      "Protestantism  consists  in  no 
specific  creed,   no   particular  ritual.     It  is  merely  a 
)>rotest,  both  by  word  and  by  deed,  against  the  ex- 
ercise of  human  authoritv  in'  the  concerns  of  relig- 
ion,'' (Rev.  (i.  Harris.)     "  Theology,  I  defme  to  be, 
tlie  art  of  teaching  what  nobody  knows.     The  priests 
set  up  a  grand  j)uppet-show,  and  make  us  pay  hand- 
somely   for    [)L'eping."    (Lord   15rougham's   (Opinions, 
iJSli?.)     '•  W  hoever  represents  any  peculiarity  of  his 
own  or  of  his  chmch's  creed,  as  an  essential  part  of 
the  (iosjicl,   thereby  subverts  the  d'ospel   itself,  as  a 
divine  institution;  he  cannot  be  ridit,  unless  Cluisti- 
Jinity  be  false.''  (Rev.  J.  Martineaii!  Rationale  of  Rel. 
liKiuiry,  1830,  p.  1U7.)     "lie  is  no  more  to  under- 
stand for  me,  than  I  am  for  him ;  nor  is  it  material 
to  any  one  what  my  opinions  are,   any  farther  than 
they  carry  their  own  evidence  with  them."     (Locke's 
Works,  p.  040.) 


LECTURE    SIXTH, 


THE  GENUINENESS  OF  THE  SCRIPTURES. 


Friends — 

We  purpose  this  evening  to  discuss  the  genv'uicness 
of  the  Scriptures.  This  will  necessarily  lead  us  to 
consider,  more  jiarticularly,  the  inlcrnal  evidence  ad- 
duced by  Christians  in  support  of  their  "  inspired  " 
text-book.  This  is  unquestionably  the  most  important 
portion  of  the  discussion,  for,  as  1  formerly  observed, 
if  the  Intcrnnl  evidence  be  false,  all  the  external  is  of 
no  avail.  If  we  can  prove  from  the  book  Usf/f  that  it 
caimot  be  of  divine  origin,  the  dispute  is  fairly  set  at 
rest. 

We  allirm,  then,  in  the  first  place,  that  the  principal 
books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  were  nol  writ- 
/cj/.  hij  Uioae  whose  names  they  bare^  and^  conseqiientlyy 
on  the  venj  fare  of  the  subject^  do  we  find  imposture  ! 
We  will  consider  the  germineness  of  the  books  seri- 
atim^ as  given  in  the  liible,  beguming  with  the  books 
of  Moses,  viz.,  Genesis,  Exodus,  Leviticus,  Numbers, 
and  Deuteronomy.  These  constitute  the  principal 
division  of  the  Jewish  Scriptures,  and  merit,  there- 
fon^,  especial  consideration. 

My  lirst  objciction  to  their  genuineness  is,  tliat  there 
is  no  affirnwfive  evidence  that  Moses  wrote  them,  that 
is,  he  himself  does  not  declare  he  is  the  author  of 
them.  It  is  the  Jewish  priesthood,  and  not  Moses, 
who  allixed  his  name  to  those  precious  compositions. 
I'here   is  not  the  Ica.-it  particle  of  direct  evidence  to 

9 


98 


THE    GENUINENESS    OF    THE    SCRIPTURES. 


prove  that  he  is  the  writer  of  them.  I  challenge  both 
Jews  and  Christians  to  adduce  it.  If  he  were  tlie  au- 
tlior  of  these  books,  why  not  plainly  and  honestly  statt, 
the  facts?  lint  Moses  has  not  done  so.  On  the  con- 
trary, the  whole  of  them  are  written  m  the  style  of  a 
neutral  writer — a  third  person.  They  are  written  as 
if  some  historian  was  narrating  events  long  gone  by. 

It  is  always,  when  his  name  is  mentioned,  "And 
the  Lord  said  unto  Moses,"  and  '•  Moses  said  unto  the 
Lord,"  or,  "the  people  said  unto  Moses,"  or,  "Moses 
said  unto  the  people" — the  style  mvariably  adopted 
by  neutral  writers. 

Supposing  that  any  one  of  you.  giving  yourself 
some  name,  say  Jackson,  was  writing  your  own  life, 
and  recording  an  interview  with  an  individual,  would 
you  not  express  it  as,  "  I  said  unto  him,"  or  "  he  said 
unto  me,"  and  not  as  "  Jackson  said  unto  Johnson," 
and  "  Johnson  said  unto  Jackson  ? "  Such  is  the 
natural  language  under  such  circiunstances,  and  any 
other  would  be  absurd. 

There  is  no  further  reason  for  believing  that  Moses 
IS  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch,  than  that  his  name 
occurs  very  frequently — that  he  is  the  hero  of  the  tale 
— a  reason  that  will  api)Iy  to  any  memoir.  Just  as 
well,  upon  that  ground,  might  you  allirm  that  John- 
son wrote  BoswelTs  life,  Byron  that  of  Moore's,  or 
Napoleon  that  of  Scott's. 

To  say  that  Moses  ?ni(rht  write  in  that  style,  is  only 
to  ^eo*  the  (picstion — to  rest  the  argument  upon  a 
doubt.  We  hav^e  just  as  much  right  to  suppose  that 
he  might  not.  Both  prove  the  same  thing — nothing. 
If  Moses  lucre  the  author  of  these  books,  what  are  we 
to  think  of  the  following  queer  passage? — 

In  Numb.  chap.  xii.  ver.  3,  it  states,  "Now,  the 
man  Moses,  was  very  meek  above  all  the  men  that 
were  on  the  f  ice  of  the  earth." 

Think,  my  friends,  of  a  meek  man  declaring  to  the 
world  that  there  is  no  person  upon  earth  as  meek  as 
himself!      The   idea    is    paradoxically    ])reposterous. 


I 


THE    GENUINENESS    OF    THE    SCRIPTURES. 


99 


If  Moses  did  write  that  passage,  it  proves  he  was  the 
very  opposite  character  to  what  he  there  assumes ; 
and  hence,  in  writing,  such  an  expression  must  have 
been  violating  the  convictions  of  his  own  mind. 

I  have  often  heard  phrenologists  speak  of  the  organs 
of  benevolence,  wonder,  veneration,  iV:c.,  being  dis- 
eased, but  if  Moses  was  the  author  of  such  language, 
1  should  say  his  organ  of  modesty  was  deranged. 

In  Deuteronomy,  the  style  strikingly  proves  the  im- 
possibility of  Moses  being  the  writer.  The  manner  is 
essentially  dramatic.  The  writer  opens  the  subject 
with  an  introductory  discourse,  and  then  introduces 
Moses  as  in  the  act  of  speaking;  and  when  lie  has 
made  Moses  finish  his  harangue,  he  resumes  his  own 
part,  and  speaks  till  he  brings  Moses  forward  again, 
and  at  last  closes  the  scene  with  an  account  of  the 
d(3ath  and  burial  of  Moses. 

This  interchange  of  speakers  occurs  no  less  than 
four  times  in  this  book  :  from  ver.  1  of  chap.  i.  to  the 
end  of  ver.  5,  it  is  the  writer  who  speaks;  he  then  in- 
troduces Moses  as  in  the  act  of  delivering  his  oration, 
and  this  continues  to  the  end  of  ver.  40,  of  chap.  iv. 
Here  the.  writer  drops  Moses,  and  speaks  historically 
of  what  was  done  in  conse(iuence  of  what  Moses, 
when  living,  is  supposed  to  have  said,  and  which  the 
writer  has  dramatically  rehearsed. 

This  style  continues  to  the  end  of  chap,  xxxiii., 
when  the  writer,  having  now  iiiiished  the  rehearsal 
on  the  part  of  Moses,  comes  forward  and  s})eaks 
through  the  whole  of  the  last  chapter,  lie  begins  by 
telling  the  reader  that  Moses  went  up  to  the  top  of 
Pisgah,  &c.,  and  died  in  the  land  of  Moab,  and  that 
the  Lord  buried  him  in  a  valley,  and  that  no  man 
knoweth  of  his  sepulchre  unto  this  day,  that  is,  unto 
the  time  at  which  the  writer  lived  who  wrote  the 
book  of  l^euteronomy.  It  is  as  clear  as  language  can 
possibly  be,  that  Moses  is  not  the  writer  of  thet>c 
books. 

Who,  that  is  in  his  right  reason,  would  believe  that 


100 


THE  GENUINENESS   OF  THE  SCRIPTURES. 


THE  GENUINENESS  OF   THE   SCRIPTURES. 


101 


Moses  composed  the  following  lines :  "  So  Moses,  the 
servant  of  the  Lord,  died  there  in  the  land  of  Moab, 
accor(hng  to  the  word  of  the  Lord.  And  he  buried 
him  in  a  valk^y  hi  the  land  of  Moah,  over  against 
J^eth-l^eer,  but  no  man  knoweth  of  his  sepulchre  unto 
this  day  ?  "  Are  we  to  beheve  that  Moses  wrote  an 
account  of  his  own  death  and  burial?  and  that,  too, 
as  is  evident  from  the  last  line,  many  years  subse- 
quent to  his  dissolution  7  Tiie  man  who  would  swal- 
low such  an  absurdity,  must  indeed  possess  a  most 
capacious  appetite  for  the  Avonderful. 

Paine  (juaiutiy  remarks,  when  alhiding  to  the  con- 
cluding portion  ot  the  verses  just  cpioted,  whicli  states, 
"That  no  man  knowt^th  of  his  se])ulchre  unto  this 
(Ja,y  ■'  —  "  To  make  Moses  the  s])eaker,  would  be  an 
improvement  on  the  play  of  a  cliild  that  hides  him- 
self, and  cries,  nobody  can  lind  me — nobody  can  lind 
Moses." 

I  proceed  to  propound  other  objections  to  the  po- 
sition that  Moses  was  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch. 
I  hold  that  these  books  were  Avritten  centuries  after 
his  time.  Tlu^  concluding  sentence  of  the  verses  just 
read  is  my  first  proof: — 

•'No  man  knoweth  of  his  sepulchre  unto  this  day." 

What  docs  this  mean?  Does  it  not  iin|)ly  the  la])se 
of  a  long  interval  between  the  day  of  Moses's  death 
and  the  period  when  this  passage  was  written  .^ 

My  next  argument  is  based  upon  (Genesis,  chap, 
xxxvi.  ver.  31  : — 

"And  these  are  the  kings  that  reigned  in  I'dom 
before  there  reigned  any  king  over  the  children  of 
Israel." 

it  is  evident  this  passage  could  not  have  been  writ- 
ten until  after  ihcjirst  king  began  to  reign  over  Israel, 
nay,  until  sercral  had  reigned;  for  the  term  "«//?/," 
as  here  used,  refers  to  a  plurality.  The  father  of 
modern  Inlidelity  explains  this  argument  with  admi- 
ral)le  tbrce  and  clearness  : — 

"  Now,  were  any  dateless  writings  to  be  found,  in 


which,  speaking  of  any  past  events,  the  writer  should 
say,  these  things  happened  before  there  was  any  Con- 
gress in  America,  or  before  there  was  any  Convention 
in  France  ;  it  would  be  evidence  that  such  writings 
could  not  have  been  written  before^  and  could  only 
have  been  written  after  there  was  a  Congress  in  Ame- 
rica, or  a  Convention  in  France,  as  the  case  might  be; 
and,  consequently,  that  it  could  not  be  written  by  any 
person  who  died  before  there  was  a  Congress  in  the 
one  country  or  a  Convention  in  the  other." 

This  case    is  precisely   parallel   to  the  passage  in 
question ;    and   it   must    be    palpal)le,    to  any  person 
of  ordinary    compr(^hension,    that   the    words  therein 
contained,  could  not  have  been  composed  until,  at  the 
very  earliest,  the  days  of  Saul,  the  (irst  king  of  Israel, 
tliat  is,  Wu  years  after  the  death  of  Moses — the  former 
event  occurring,  according  to  the  lliblical  Chronology, 
1095  «.  c,  and  the  latter  1 152  b.  c.     To  aflirm,  there- 
fore, that  Moses  was  the  author  of  a  book,  referring  to 
events  which  did  not  happen  until  nearly  four  centu- 
ries after  he  was   snugly  reposhig  in   the  "  valley  of 
Moab,"  is  to  affirm  something  more  than  an  al)surdity. 
Again — In  (Genesis,  chap.   xiv.  ver.  II,  we  are  told 
that  Abram   pursued    his  enemies    imto  Dan.     Now 
there  was  no  place  named  Dan  until  after  the  death 
of  Samson — that  is,    more  than  300  years   subsequent 
to  the  days  of  Moses.     Moses,    therefore,    could   not 
have  written  this  passage.     The  place  called   Dan  in 
the  !>ible,  was  originally  a  town  of  the  Gentiles,  called 
Lalsh;    and  when  the  tribe  of  Dan   seized  upon   this 
town,  they  changed  its  name  to  Dan,  in  commemora- 
tion of  Dan,  who   was  the  father  of  that  tribe.     In 
proof  of  this  statement,   I  will  refer   you   to  Judges, 
chap  .xviii.  verses  27,  28,  and  20  : — 

"  And  they  took  the  things  which  Micah  had  made, 
and  the  priest  which  he  had,  and  came  unto  Laish, 
unto  a  people  that  were  quiet  and  secure  ;  and  they 
smote  them  with  the  edge  of  the  sword,  and  burnt 
the  city  with  lire.      And  there  was  no  deliverer,   be- 

9* 


t 


102 


THE  GENUINENESS   OF   TTIF.   SCRIITURE& 


THE    GENUINENESS    OF    THE    SCRIPTURES. 


103 


cause  it  was  far  from  Zidon,  and  they  liad  no  busi- 
ness with  any  man ;  and  it  was  in  tiie  valley'  that 
lieth  by  Beth-rehob.  And  they  built  a  city  and  dwelt 
therein.  And  they  called  tl)e  name  of  the  city,  Dan, 
after  the  name  of  Dan  their  father,  who  was  born 
unto  Israel  :  howb«3it,  the  name  of  the  city  was  Laish 
at  the  first."  This  aceonnt  of  the  Danites  taking  pos- 
session of  fiaish,  and  changing  it  to  Dan,  is  placed  in 
the  book  of  Jndii'es  immediately  nf/er  the  death  of 
Samson.  The  death  of  Samson  occurred  1120,  b.  c, 
and  that  of  Moses  1 152,  p.  c.,  and,  therefore,  accord- 
ing to  historical  arrangement,  the  place  was  not  called 
D  ui  vntd  XVi  years  after  the  decease  of  Moses.  It  is 
manifest,  then,  that  he  could  have  nothing  to  do  with 
the  authorship.  Again — Could  Moses  have  written 
the  8th  verse  of  the  3Sth  chap,  of  Ilxodus,  which 
s|)eaks  of  '-'  lottkhifr-irlas.^es,'^  when  glass  was  only 
invented  by  Henedict.  an  liUglish  monk,  m  \\\q  seventh 
century — (the  year  074)  more  than  20U0  years  after 
Mose.^  icas  dead  J 

It  is  clear,  my  friends,  thnt  no  historian  is  worthy 
of  credit,  wliosc  history  contains  gross  anachronisms 
— allusions  to  facts  of  subserpient  date,  or  to  customs 
of  subsequent  date,  or  who  employs  words:  expres- 
sions, and  phrases,  not  confonuabic  with  the  time  of 
which  he  speaks.  Such  anachronisms  furnish  irrefu- 
table objections  to  the  genunieuess  of  any  ancient 
book,  and  the  l^eiUateuch  a})onnds  in  such  discrepan- 
cies. Suppose  a  play  published  as  Shakspeare's,  con- 
tained allusior)s  to  the  Battle  of  Waterloo,  is  not  that 
enough  to  destroy  all  claim  to  geimineness 7  Would 
it  not  prove  that  Shakspean^  did  not  write  it?  I  could 
refer  you  to  other  anachronisms  as  gross  as  any  1  liavc 
just  poiiUed  out.  Dr.  Francis  has  noticed  several. — 
*-ln  the  book  of  the  Old  Testament,"  says  he,  "we 
lind  abundant  proofs  that  they  have  been  written  in 
an  age  greatly  posterior  to  that  of  Moses.  In  (ienesis, 
chap.  xii.  v.  6,  we  find  these  words — '  And  the  Ca- 
naanite  was  then  in  the  land/   which  we  learn   from 


the  Bible,  did  not  happen  till  after  David,  and  could 
not,  therefore,  be  written  by  Moses.  The  beginning 
of  Deuteronomy  is  certainly  not  written  by  him,  for 
he  never  passed  the  Jordan.  lie  died  upon  Mount 
Ncbor,  to  the  eastward  of  it.  In  Dent.  chap,  xxxiv, 
we  find  this  expression — '  Tliere  never  was,  in  Israel, 
so  great  a  prophet  as  Moses  ; '  and  such  eould  l)C  point- 
ed out  in  many  places.  Thf»ro  needs  no  comment  to 
show  that  such  passages  could  only  be  written  in  a 
posterior  age,  and  when  there  had  been  several  proph- 
ets after  Moses." 

What,  however,  may  be  considered  as  more  conclu- 
sive than  all  the  rest,  that  the  Pentateuch  could  not 
have  been  written  by  Moses,  comprising,  as  it  does,  a 
large  volume,  is,  that  there  were  only  two  modes  of 
writing  known  to  Moses :  one  by  cutting  the  words 
in  stone,  and  the  other  by  tracing  them  on  soft  mortar 
or  plaster,  which  last  method  he  expressly  recom- 
mends to  the  Jews,  Dent.  chap,  xxvii.  verses  4  and  8. 
Perhaps  the  tables  of  stone  used  on  the  mount  were 
also  plastered,  for  Moses  wrote  thereon  the  command- 
ments in  one  morning.  To  have  written  all  the  di- 
dactic part  of  the  Pentateuch,  either  in  one  way  or 
the  other,  would  have  been  next  to  impossible ;  and, 
when  written,  what  building  could  contain  this  heap 
of  stones^  or  how  were  they  to  be  transported?  Why, 
it  would  have  required  as  much  stone  to  write  out  the 
five  long  books  of  the  Pentateuch  as  would  have  built 
the  finest  street  in  liUrope.  When,  dierefore,  the  au- 
thor of  this  collection,  makes  Moses  wr'Ue  the  law  in  a 
BOOK,  he  conforms  himself  to  the  language  and  ideas 
of  his  oir/n  day,  not  of  the  days  of  Mo.ses.  The  au- 
thor, therefore,  wrote  or  compiled  it  when  books  were 
in  common  use.  There  is  no  evidence  of  the  papyrus 
being  used  for  writing  in  the  time  of  Mo.ses,  nor  for  a 
long  time  after.  A  writer  in  Walsh's  American  Re- 
view, states  that  the  IJgyptian  papyrus  was  not  in 
common  use  till  the  time  of  the  Ptolemies,  and  that 
Herodotus   was  the  first  historian  who  could   have 


104 


THE    GENUINENESS    OF    THE    SCRIPTURES. 


made  use  of  it.      I  scarcely  need  state   that  no   long 
word,  such  as  the  Pentateuch,  could  have  been   writ- 
ten till  the  invention  of  that  material,  about  one  thou- 
sand years  after  Moses  !      You  w'lW   remember  in  my 
first   Lecture,  I  informed  you   that  the   hrst  time   the 
*-law  of  Moses"   was  ever  mentioned,   was   by  the 
priest  llilkiah,  800   years  afler  Moses,   who  says  he 
fonnd  it.     Found  it !  indeed  !      Why.  if  Moses  wrote 
it,  it  must  have  been  upon  stone  or  plaster,  and  how 
in  the  name  of  common  sense  could  such  a  prodigious 
mass  of  materials   have   been   losl,   and  tliat  for  800 
years  I      It  is  a  farce  to  talk  of  an   elaborate   liistory 
written  on  such  materials — none   but  a  Hible-reader 
could  swallow  such   nonsense.       With   res])ect  to   the 
book  of  Genesis  in  particular,  it   is  quite   evident   it 
must  have  been   written  by   two  diflerent  historians, 
at  least,  and  therefore  could  not  be  the  work  of  Moses, 
even  supposing  all  our  former  objections  were  invalid! 
I  principally  refer  to  the  first  four  chapters,   detailing 
the  creation.       There  are  two  diiferent  stories  of  this 
event,  so  opposite  to  each  other,  in  style  and  fact,  that 
no  individual  excepting  a  lunatic,  without   memory, 
could  write  them.     The  first  story  begins  with  chap, 
i.  and  ends  at  chap.  ii.  v.  3.    The  second  begins  chap, 
ii.  V.  4,  and  ends  with  that  chapter.     Dr.    Eichorn  is 
of  opinion  that  these  books  must  have  been  composed 
by  diiferent   writers.     One  story  speaks  of  God,   the 
other  of  Lord   God — one  concludes,   chap.    i.   v.   27, 
with    telling  us  man  and  2cojna?i  were  created,   the 
other  dcrrlns,  with  telling  us  they  were  Jiot,    (chap.  ii. 
V.  5.)     One  says  man   and  woman   were  created  /o- 
gelher,  ^chap.  i.  v.  27,)  the  other  that  the  woman  was 
made  sometime  ffficr  the  man,  (chap.  ii.  v.  18.)     Ac- 
cording to  the  first  story  there  was  no  name  given   to 
the  first  man  and    woman.     According  to  the   second 
they  have  names  given  them — one  sayls   they  were   to 
have  dominion  over  Me  iv/iole  earth — the   other   that 
their  dominion  was  limited  to  a  garden.     One  narra- 
tive gives  six  days  of  creation— the  other   (chap.  ii. 


THE    GENUINENESS    OF    THE    SCRIPTURES. 


105 


V.  4,)  relates  the  story  as  if  there  were  only  one  day. 
^\\^.  first  account  makes  no  mention  of  any  particular 
countries,  whiln  the  .s-eco/^ci  appears  to  have  been  writ- 
ten many  years  later,  after  countries  and  places  had 
acquired  names,  as  the  writer  mentions  Havilah, 
Ethiopia,  Assyria,  the  Euphrates,  the  land  of  Nod, 
and  other  places. 

My  friends,  it  is  a  curious  fact,  if  Moses  was  the 
author  of  the  Pentateuch,  or  if  these  books  had  been 
in  existence  at  all,  at  so  early  a  period  as  alleged,  that 
not  the  slightest  mention  should  be  made  of  them  in 
any  of  the  subsequeiU  books  of  the  Old  Testament, 
until  the  return  of  the  .Tews  from  the  Babylonish  cap- 
tivity. From  .Toshua  to  the  second  book  of  Kings, 
(which  was  written  after  the  captivity,  as  it  gives  an 
account  of  that  event,)  there  is  not  the  most  remote 
allusion  to  any  writings  answering  the  Pentateuch, 
and  even  the  name  of  Moses  rarely  occurs  !  From 
all  these  considerations,  therefore,  we  are  warranted 
in  affirming  that  the  Pentateuch  could  not  have  been 
written  until  after  the  Babylonish  captivity,  at  least 
— that  is,  nearly  one  thousand  years  subsequent  to 
Moses.  It  is  higlhy  probable  Ezra  was  the  real  au- 
thor of  tliese  books,  and  he  lived  only  four  hundred 
years  before  Christ.  The  Tahnudists,  and  the  .lewish 
writers  generally  ascribe  the  Pentateuch  to  Ezra.  In 
Nehemiah,  we  are  told,  as  mentioned  on  a  former  oc- 
casion, that  he  was  "inspired  to  re-write  "  the  Jewish 
Scriptures,  as  they  had  been  absolutely  lost  during  the 
captivity.  It  was  then,  the  Pentateuch  was  manufac- 
tured, and,  therefore,  we  must  esteem  them  as  com- 
piratively  modern.  Of  this  we  are  certain — no  writer 
can  be  cited  as  referring  to  them,  until  the  collection 
made  by  the  Ptolemies  for  the  Alexandrian  school, 
and  of  these,  the  Greek  version,  resting  on  no  autho- 
rity, is  the  only  one.  This  occurred  only  300  years 
before  Christ.  I  defy  the  priesthood  to  overturn  this 
fact.  The  opinions  I  have  thus  given  upon  these  wri- 
tings, is  strongly  confirmed  by  the  fact,  that  many  of 


106 


THE   GENUINENESS   OF  THE   SCRIPTURES. 


THE   GENUINENESS   OF   THE   SCRIPTURES. 


lor 


the  mysteries  and  dogmas  recorded  therein,  are  exact 
fac-similcs  of  the  mysteries  of  the  Babylonians.  Tlie 
creation  in  six  days,  is  a  perfect  copy  of  the  Gahatis 
of  Zoroaster,  the  founder  of  the  Babylonish  philoso- 
phy, and  what  is  still  more  singnlar,  the  particulars 
of  each  day's  work,  are  also  j^recisehj  similar,  in  every 
respect.  The  story  of  the  serpent  and  the  fall^  was 
long  famons  among  that  people.  The  mythological 
deluge  of  Oxyges  is  jvst  the  same  as  Noah' s  flood,  and 
the  story  of  Adam  and  Eve  in  Paradise,  is  a  mere 
copy  of  Zoroaster's  first  pair.  The  Talmnd  expressly 
declares  that  tlic  Jews  borrowed  the  names  of  the 
angels,  and  even  their  months,  from  the  Babylonians. 

The  book  of  Cicnesis,  has  evidently  been  taken  from 
that  people,  which  could  not  have  been  done  until 
after  the  captivity.  Moses,  therefore,  could  not  have 
written  that  book. 

It  is  a  vulgar  belief  among  Christians,  that  Genesis 
is  the  oldest  book  in  the  world.  A  more  egregious 
mistake,  however,  could  not  be  entertained.  8ancho- 
niatho,  the  Phoenician  historian,  and  the  Hindoo  and 
Chinese  annals,  are  of  much  higher  antiquity  than 
Moses.  The  astronomical  records  of  the  Chinese, 
prove  that  there  were  men  and  astronomers  in  that 
country  at  the  very  time,  the  stupid  Jews  would  per- 
suade us,  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  world,  except  Noah 
and  his  family,  were  drowned  by  the  deluge  !  Souceit 
mentions  an  eclipse  of  the  sun,  recorded  in  the  Chi- 
nese history,  which  happened  215.5  years  before 
Christ,  which  is  but  256  years  after  the  deluge,  at  a 
time  when  the  Bible  informs  us  the  earth  was  only  in- 
habited by  the  progeny  of  Noah  !  while  Egypt,  at  the 
very  time,  was  then  so  peopled,  that  many  cities  could 
not  contain  the  inhabitants,  and  China  was  not  less 
populous. 

The  Hindoo  astronomical  observations,  as  far  as 
they  have  been  examined  by  the  most  learned  astro- 
nomers of  the  age,  Baillie,  Le  Gentil,  and  others, 
carry  their  antiquity  between  four  and  five  thousand 


years  beyond  our  era,  as  may  be  seen  in  a  paper  writ- 
ten by  the  late  Professor  Playfair,  of  Edinburgh,  and 
recorded  in  the  second  volume  of  the  Philosophical 
Transactions. 

In  leaving  this  subject,  I  shall  adduce  the  authority 
of  some  of  the  most  distinguished  Jewish  and  Chris- 
tian writers,  in  corroboration  of  the  position  I  have 
been  maintaining. 

Eben  Ezra,  a  celebrated  Jewish  author  of  the 
twelfth  century,  wrote  a  work  to  prove  that  Moses 
could  not  be  the  author  of  the  book  of  Genesis,  or  of 
any  of  the  five  books  attributed  to  him;  and  the  fa- 
mous Jewish  philosopher,  Spinoza,  who  flourished  in 
the  sixteenth  century,  after  quoting  the  opinions  of 
Ebcn  Ezra,  shows  that  the  Bible  did  not  exist  as  a 
hook  nntil  the  time  of  the  Maccabees^  wliicli  was  more 
than  one  hundred  years  after  the  return  of  the  Jews 
from  the  Babylonian  captivity.  The  distinguished 
Christian  father,  *SV.  Jerome,  confesses  that  he  ''dares'' 
not  affirm  that  Moses  was  the  author  of  the  Penta- 
teuch, and  admits  that  Ezra  wrote  those  books.  Sir 
Isaac  Newton  and  Lord  Barrington  aflirm  that  it  was 
neither  Moses  nor  Ezra  who  wrote  them,  but  Samuel. 
Dr.  Geddes,  declares  that  it  was  none  of  the  three,  but 
Solomon,  who  composed  them.  The  Rev.  W.  Fox, 
in  his  sermons  published  in  1819,  remarks  "  that  the 
early  part  of  Genesis  is  a  compilation  of  ancient  docu- 
ments, and  not  the  writing  of  Moses,  has  been  the 
opinion  of  some  of  the  most  able  divines  and  si?icere 
believers."  A  writer  in  the  '*  Penny  Cyclopoedia," 
article  Hebrew,  expresses  a  siihilar  opinion.  ''The 
language  in  which  the  Pentateuch  is  written,"  says 
he,  '^  differs  so  little  from  that  of  David,  Solomon,  and 
Isaiah,  w/io  lived  many  centuries  after  the  time  of 
MosEs,  that  many  critics,  supposing  it  impossible  that 
a  language  should  have  remained  stationary  for  so 
man}'  centuries,  have  maintained  that  none  of  the 
books  of  the  Old  Testament  were  written  previous 
to  the  time  of  David  and  Solomon.  It  is  7iot  very 
easy  to  disprove  this  position."     So  say  I. 


108 


THK   GENUINENESS   OF  THE  SCRIPTURES, 


The  distinguished  Christian  Professor,  Dnpin,  posi- 
tively asserts,  that  "  we  are  not  certainly  assured  of 
the  true  autliors  of  most  of  the  books  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament." liC  ( M(  re,  also,  as  quoted  by  Dupin,  inti- 
mates tliat  the  Pentateuch  was  a  <^rcat  deal  more 
modern  than  Moses,  and  it  may  be  conjectured  to 
have  been  com|)osed  by  some  Jeuis/t  Priests,  sent 
from  Babylon  to  instruct  the  new  inhabitants  of 
Palestine. 

I  must  now  liasten  to  review  the  remaining  books 
of  the  Scriptures.  Having  devoted  so  much  of  our 
time  to  the  Pentateuch,  we  shall,  necessarily,  be  some- 
what brief  whh  the  rest. 

Joshua — The  objections  urged  against  the  books  of 
Moses,  will  apply,  in  a  great  degree,  to  Joshua.  It  i 
written  in  the  same  neutral  style.  The  historian,  and 
not  Joshua,  speaks.  The  death  and  burial  of  Joshua 
is  recorded,  though  we  are  to  believe  he  himself  wrote 
it !  In  chap,  xxiv.,  29th  and  3()th  verses,  it  states, 
"  And  it  came  to  pass  after  these  things,  that  Joshua, 
the  son  of  Nun,  the  servant  of  the  liOrd,  died,  being 
one  hundred  and  ten  years  old;  and  they  buried  him 
in  the  border  of  his  inheritance,  in  Timnath-serah, 
which  is  Mount  Ephraim,  on  the  north  side  of  the  hill 
of  Gaash." 

T'he  Christian  priesthood  declare,  that  Joshua  is 
the  author  of  a  book  containing  this  passage.  How 
matchless  is  the  impudence  and  stupidity  of  these 
men  I  In  the  following  verse,  (the  31st,)  we  read, 
"And  Israel  served  the  Lord  all  the  days  of  Joshua, 
and  all  the  days  of  the  elders  that  overlived  .Foshua." 
In  the  name  of  reason  could  it  be  Joshua  who  here  re- 
lates what  people  had  done  ages  alter  he  was  in 
heaven  1 

In  the  27th  ver.  of  the  6th  chap.,  there  occurs  a 
passage  which  shows,  if  Joshua  wrote  it,  that  his 
modesty  was  in  the  same  condition  as  tliat  of  his  pre- 
decessor, Moses.  It  is  given  m  the  following  classic 
language:   "So  the  Lord  was  with   Joshua,    and  his 


THE  GENUINENESS  OF   THE   SCIUPTUllES. 


109 


fame  was  noised  tlirougliout  all  the  country."  There 
are  many  passages  in  Joshua  which  prove  that  that 
book  could  not  liave  been  written  until  many  centu- 
ries after  the  lime  alleged  by  the  Cliristian  world.  One 
of  these  is  the  following.  Time  will  not  admit  of  my 
giving  more.  It  states,  in  the  l.">th  chap,  of  Joshua, 
ver.  63,  that  "  the  Jebusites  dwell  with  the  children 
of  Judah  at  Jerusalem,  unto  this  day."  Now  the  Is- 
raelites did  not  dwell  in  Jerusalem,  until  after  the  time 
of  David.  Jerusalem  did  not  come  into  the  hands  of 
the  Jews,  until  subdued  by  David,  as  mentioned  in 
the  2d  Book  of  Samuel,  chap,  v.,  ver.  4 ;  and  in  the 
Chronicles.  This  passage,  therefore,  could  not  be 
written  until  subsequent  to  the  reign  of  David,  that 
is,  370  years  after  the  death  of  Joshua.  When  we 
take  into  account  the  expression,  "unto  this  day," 
the  l)ook  could  not  be  composed  until  long  after  even 
David's  time,  as  those  words  im])ly  a  considerable  in- 
terval between  the  period  of  writing,  and  the  event 
referred  to. 

We  now  come  to  J/fds^es.     We  need,  sa}'  little  of 
this  book.     It  must  take  the  fate  of  .Toshua,  beinj;,  in 

7  07 

all  probability,  from  the  identity  of  the  style,  and 
other  circuinstances,  the  Avork  of  tlie  same  pen.  In 
the  1st  chap.,  ver.  8,  there  is  a  similar  reference  to  .Te- 
rnsalem,  as  in  Joshua,  "Now  the  children  of  .Tudah, 
had  fought  against  Jerusalem,  and  ta/re}i  it."  This 
clearly  evinces  that  the  book  could  not  have  l)een  writ- 
ten until  after  David's  time,  and  my  remarks  upon 
this  point,  Avill  be  as  valid  in  relation  to  Judges  as 
Joshua. 


I  pass,  therefore,  to  Samncl,  not  deeming  tlic  silly 
and  indecent  story  of  Ru/h,  worthy  of  notice.  The 
books  of  Samuel  arc  evidently  not  written  by  him, 
unless  he  was  "as  clever  as  Moses  and  Joshua;  for  in 
the  1st  Book,  chap,  xxv.,  ver.  1,  there  is  an  elaborate 
account  of  his  death  and  funeral !  lliis  event  trans- 
pired, according  to  the  i^ible  chronology,  \\i  the  year 
1060  B.  c. ;  yet  the  history  of  the  very  book,  in  which 

10 


110 


THE    GENUrNENESS    OF    THE    SCRIPTURES. 


THE    GENUINENESS    OF    THE    SCRIPTURES. 


Ill 


his  death  is  recorded,  is  brought  down  to  the  year 
105(),  to  the  deatli  of  Saul,  whicti  occurred  four  years 
after  thai  of  Samuel.  The  2nd  Book  begins  with  the 
reign  of  JJavid,  who  succeeded  Saul,  and  continues 
the  history  until  J)avid's  decrepitude,  which  did  not 
occur  until  43  years  after  the  decease  of  Samuel. 
Tliesc  books,  therefore,  are,  in  themselves,  conclnsive 
evidence  that  they  were  not  written  by  that  proud 
and  brutal  priest. 

As  to  Kin^s  and  Chronicles  —  the  four  following 
books — they  are  acknowledged  to  be  anonyrnmis.  I 
need  not,  therefore,  notice  them,  only  to  remark,  that 
they  must  have  l)een  composed  after  the  Babylonish 
captivity,  as  the  2nd  Book  of  Kings  gives  an  account 
of  that  event.  This  proves  them  to  be  comparatively 
modern. 

Ezra — This  book  may  be  genuine.  Ezra  probably 
wrote  it  at  the  time  ha  forced  other  books  of  the  Old 
Testament,  under  the  peculiarly  priestly  presumption, 
that  he  was  "inspired"  to  "re-write"  them. 

Nehcmiah — The  next  book,  could  not  be  written  by 
that  holy  personage  ;  for  in  chap,  xii.,  ver.  22,  Jaddua, 
the  priest,  and  Darius,  the  Persian  king,  are  m.en- 
tioucd,  who  did  not  live  until  lOi)  years  after  Nehc- 
miah was  in  his  grave.  Some  one  wrote  this  book 
who  lived  at  least  a  century  after  Nehemiah's  time. 

Esther — The  following  book,  is  confessedly  anony- 
mous. 

The  remaining  books  of  the  Old  Testament  are  not 
so  much  historical,  as  a  compound  of  proverbs,  songs, 
and  prophecies. 

Of  the  latter,  I  shall  speak  at  length  when  I  discuss 
the  question  of  prophecy ;  of  the  former,  I  may  soon 
dispose. 

Job  is  evidently  not  a  Jewish  composition ;  it  has 
no  affinity  with  any  other  book  m  the  P>ible  :  it  stands 
"  alone  in  its  glory."  'i'his  was  the  opinion  of  some 
of  the  most  learned  Jews.  j']ben  Ezra  and  Spinoza 
have  declared  there  is  no  evidence  to  prove  that  it  is 


i 


a  Jewish  book.  They  maintain  that  it  has  been  trans- 
lated from  another  language  into  Hebrew ;  that  the 
genius  of  the  composition,  and  the  drama  of  the  piece 
is  not  Hebrew^  and  tiiat  some  Gentile  must  be  the  au- 
thor. Nevertheless,  this  is  the  only  decent  book  in  the 
Old  Testament,  with  the  exception  of  the  Proverbs, 
of  which  I  shall  speak  presently.  St.  Gregory,  in  the 
Preface  to  his  Commentary  on  the  Book  of  Job,  after 
stating  that  its  author  is  zmknoicn^  observes,  "  'Tis 
needless  to  inquire  who  composed  the  book  of  Job, 
since  none  of  the  faithfnl  question  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  was  the  author  of  it."  Now,  if  the  authorship 
of  .fob  is  unknown,  how  could  the  "  faithful  "  knoio 
that  the  Holy  (ihost  wrote  it ']  If  it  be  a  fact  that 
this  strange  writer  was  the  "inspired"  penman,  the 
author  is  known — Holy  Ghost !  !  Where  did  ho 
live  7  Where  did  he  come  from  ?  But  we  are  grow- 
ing "  blasphemus."  W^e  must  proceed  with  our  sub- 
ject. 

The  book  of  Proverbs  is  ascribed  to  Solomon. 
There  is  every  reason,  however,  to  induce  the  belief 
that  those  proverbs  are  nothing  but  a  collection  of 
sayings,  taken  from  other  nations,  besides  the  Jewish, 
and  Solomon's  name  added  to  give  them  authority. — 
This  opinion  is  confirmed  by  the  1st  verse  of  the  25th 
chapter,  which  asserts  that,  "  these  are  also  proverbs 
of  Solomon,  which  the  men  of  Hezekiah,  king  of  Ju- 
dah,  copied  out."  Now,  Hezekiah  did  not  live  until 
250  years  after  Solomon.  How  then  could  they  cer- 
tainly know,  at  that  distance  of  time,  with  no  press 
to  transmit  them,  that  they  were  Solomon's  ?  What 
authority  do  they  give  for  their  genuineness  7  Abso- 
lutely none. 

Psalms  —  These  pious  songs,  in  point  of  order, 
should  have  been  noticed  after  Job.  The  mass  of 
Bible-readins:  Christians  ascribe  them  to  David. — 
Hence,  the  general  title  in  the  Prayer  Books,  &c., 
*'The  Psalms  of  David."  I  wonder  if  David  wrote 
the  137th  Psalm,  which  refers  to  an  event  which  did 


112 


THE   GENUINENESS    OF    THE    SCRIPTURES 


not  happen  until  400  years  after  bo  was  defunct !  I 
mean  the  Babylonish  captivity.  "  By  the  rivers  of 
Rnhijhni  we  sat  down,  yea,  we  wept  wlien  we  remem- 
bered Zion.  We  hani^ed  our  liar}>s  upon  the  willows, 
in  the  midst  thereof,  for  there  tlwy  lolw  ntrricd  us 
away  captive,  re([nired  of  us  a  song,  saying,  Sing  us 
one  of  the  songs  of  Zion."  The  more  learned  men 
admit  that  David  composed  only  al)out  a  third  of  the 
Psalms.  Some  are  ascri])ed  to  Moses  and  other  godly 
penmen,  no  less  than  fifty  being  anonymous.  It  is 
an  error  or  imposition,  therefore,  to  speak  of  them  as 
''the  Psalms  of  David." 

A\  e  will  now  brie rly  notice  the  books  of  the  New 
'I'estauKMit.  First,  of  the  Gospels.  To  disprove  their 
genuineness,  I  nuist  remind  you,  in  the  first  ])lace,  of 
the  imi)ortant  fact,  as  explained  in  my  Second  Dis- 
course, that  the  ///'.s/  time  these  books  were  mentioned 
was  in  the  year  1S2,  some  learned  men  say  192. — 
There  is  no  conclusive  or  satisfactory  evidence  they 
were  in  existence  before  diat  date.  Not  one  of  the 
apostolic  fathers  allude  to  them,  which  they  certainly 
would  have  done,  had  they  been  current.  They  refer 
to  other  gospels,  but  not  in  the  most  remote  degree,  do 
they  allude  to  either  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  or  John. 

it',  therefore,  these  gospels  were  not  extant  earlier 
than  the  days  of  Jreneus,  (1S2)  it  is  morally  impossi- 
ble for  them  to  have  been  comi)Osed  by  the  four  apos- 
tles just  named,  Jreneus  not  living  until  nearly  a 
century  after  their  time.  The  Christian  father,  Fauste, 
in  his  controversy  with  Augustine,  about  the  year 
400,  distinctly  aiiirms,  that  the  gospels  are  iiol  !^emi- 
ine.  He  observes,  "  The  books  called  the  evangelists 
have  been  composed  long  after  tlie  times  of  the  apos- 
tles, by  some  obsciu'c  men,  who,  fearing  that  the  world 
would  not  give  credit  to  their  relation  of  matters,  of 
Schick  they  could  not  he  informed^  Ijave  published  them 
viider  the  name  of  the  apostles  ;  and  which  are  so  full 
of  sottishness  and  discordant  relations  that  there  is 
neither  agreement  nor  connexion  between  them."    He 


the  genuineness  of  the  scriptures. 


113 


further  remarks,  "  It  is  thus  that  your  predecessors 
have  inserted  in  the  Scriptures  of  our  Lord  many 
thiugs,  which,  though  they  carry  his  naine^  agree  not 
with  his  doctrine.  This  is  not  sur})rising,  since  that 
'ire  have  of  ten  proved  these  things  have  not  been  writ- 
ten by  himself,  nor  by  his  apostles^  but,  that  for  the 
greatest  part,  they  arc  founded  upon  talcs,  u])on  vague 
reports.,  and  put  togetlier^  but  J  know  not  what,  lialf 
Jews,  with  but  little  agreement  between  them,  and 
which  they  have,  nevertheless,  pntdislied  under  the 
iiauie  (f  the  apo.stlrs  of  our  Lord^  and  have  thus  at- 
tributed to  them  their  own  errors  and  lies  I  ''  Very 
polite,  certainly,  for  a  (.'hristian  Bishop!  Those  who 
wish  to  verily  these  important  extracts  may  refer  to 
Boulangers  I  iife  of  Paul,  who  states  that  he  has  taken 
them  from  the  writings  of  Augustine  against  Fauste. 
Boulanger  also  makers  juiother  astounding  statement 
in  the  2nd  chapter  of  his  work.  "The  Manicheans, 
who  formed  a  ver}^  numerous  sect  at  the  commence- 
ment of  Christianity,  rejected  as  false  all  the  books 
of  the  New  Testament,  and  showed  other  writings 
quite  dilferenr,  which  they  gave  as  authentic." 

M.  Simon,  the  learned  French  theologian,  in  his 
"  Critical  History  of  the  text  of  the  New  Testament,'' 
assures  us,  that,  "  We  have  no  solid  proof  in  anticpii- 
ty  to  make  it  appear  to  us,  that  the  names  set  at  the 
headof  ever}^  gospel  were  thereunto  prelixed  by  those 
who  are  the  authors  of  them." 

Du  Pin,  the  Christian  historian,  expresses  a  similar 
opinion,  and  asserts,  confidently,  that  we  have  only 
the  testimony  of  the  Fathers  for  the  genuineness  of 
the  gospels. 

Those  who  heard  my  Third  Address  will  know 
Avhat  weight  to  give  to  their  testiniiyiiy.  M.  Simon, 
himself,  from  whom  I  have  just  ([uoted,  alluding  to 
the  Fathers  at  this  time,  says,  '•  We  ought  not  too  ea- 
sily to  give  credit  to  the  first  originals  of  churches, 
(the  Fathers)  every  one  strives  to  advance  their  anti- 
quity as  jnuch  as  possible,  and  they  make  ?to  scruple 

10* 


Ill 


THE    GENUINENESS    OF    THE    SCRIPTURES. 


on  such  occasions,  to  counterfeit  acts^  when  tliey 
have  none  that  arc  true.''''  To  rest,  therefore,  your  be- 
lief in  the  genuineness  of  the  gospel,  upon  the  veracity 
of  such  men,  is  truly  .preposterous. 

I  iCt  nie,  however,  give  you  internal  proof  that  the 
gospels  arc  not  genuine,  which  is  worth  a  volume  of 
external  evidence.  Matthew,  chap,  xviii.,  ver.  17, 
says,  '*'  If  he  neglect  to  hear  the  churchy  let  him  be 
inito  thee  as  a  heathen  man  and  a  iHiblican."  Now 
there  was  no  church  in  the  time  of  Jesus  or  Matthew. 
Cluirch  is  a  (iroek  word.  The  assembly  of  the  peo- 
ple of  Athens,  styled  '\[s(i\{  cedes ia.  This  expression 
was  only  adopted  by  the  (Christians,  in  jvoccss  of 
tiniCj  when  they  had  obtained  a  kind  of  govermncnt. 
A  book  containing  such  a  passage,  could  not  have 
been  written  by  Matthew. 

Acts  and   the    Epistles — Many   of  these  writings 
have  been  repudiated  as  not  genuine,  by  some  one  or 
other  of  the  (Jhristian  sects.     Euscbius,    in  his   third 
book,  informs  lis,  that  the  epistles  "which  are  gain- 
said,   though  well  known  to  many,  are,  the  Epistle  of 
James,  the  Epistle  of  Jude,  the  latter  of  Peter,   and 
the  Second  and  Third  of  John."     He  also  mentions 
that    the   Acts  of  Paul,  and  several  others,  were  re- 
jected as  spinious.     Dr.  Du  Pin  affirms  that  the  l^pis- 
llo  to  the  Hebrews,   "has  no  ccrtahi  name  as  the  real 
author."      Boulanger,  hi  his  "  Life  of  Paul,"   states, 
that  the  Marcionists,   and  other  early  Christian  sects, 
rejected  the  Acts  as  forged,  and  that  the    sect  called 
the  Sevenians,  adopted  neither  the  Acts  nor  the  Epis- 
tles of  Paul.      Chrysostom,    in   a   homily    which  he 
made  upon  the  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  says,  that  in  his 
time,  about  the  year  400,  many  people  knew  nothing 
either  of  the  author  or  the  book.     The  Ehronites,  in- 
deed, who  were   the  first  Christians,  rejected  all   the 
l^ipistles  of  Paul,   and  regarded  him  as  an  hnpostor — 
— a  very  sensible  opinion. 

Revelations — The  last  book  in  the  Bible,   if  we  are 
to  accredit  many  learned  Christians,    is  like  the  rest 


THE    GENUINENESS    OF    THE    SCRIPTURES. 


115 


■ — a  pious  fraud.  One  of  these  learned  Christians  is 
no  less  a  person  than  Dionysius,  Bishop  of  Alexan- 
dria, who  nourished  in  the  third  century.  His  testi- 
mony has  been  repeatedly  cited  by  modern  Christians ; 
amongst  whom  is  the  Christian  professor,  Du  I^in. 
The  bishop  broadly  aflirms  that  "  Divers  of  our  prede- 
cessors have  wholly  refused  and  rejected  this  book, 
and  by  discussing  the  several  chapt(^rs  thereof,  have 
found  it  obscure,  and  void  of  reasons,  and  the  t'ltle 
for<redl  !  !  Again,  they  said  it  was  not  John's,  nay, 
it  was  no  revelation  at  all;  which  was  covered  with 
so  gross  a  veil  of  ignorance,  and  that  there  was  none, 
either  of  the  apostles,  or  of  the  saints,  or  of  them 
which  belonged  to  the  church,  the  author  of  this  book, 
but  CorlntJuis,  the  author  of  the  Corinthian  heresy, 
instituting  this  as  a  figment  in  the  name  of  John,  for 
further  credit  and  authority."  We  have  internal  evi- 
dence that  this  book  could  not  have  been  written  by 
John;  for  tlie  writer  refers  to  the  cJinrch  of  Tjaodlcca^ 
and  its  sloth  and  corruptions,  consequent  upon  its 
great  riches  and  power.  Now,  this  cliurch  was  not 
esta])lished  until  tlie  middle  of  the  second  century, 
nearly  100  years  after  the  time  of  John.  A  very 
clever  man  John  must  have  been  truly,  to  have  men- 
tioned events  which  did  not  happen  until  upwards  of 
a  century  after  he  had  gone  to  "  another  and  a  better 
world  !  " 

We  have  tested  the  genuineness  of  the  respective 
books  of  the  Old  and  Ncnv  Testament,  and  in  relation 
to  tlie  last — Revelations — the  grand  /?y^^//e  of  the  Bible, 
we  are  actually  told  by  a  (liristian  bishop,  not  only 
that  it  was  not  written  by  John,  but  is  merely  the 
composition  of  a  heretic. 

O  !  how  long  will  the  people  support  such  im- 
posture 7  Will  they  never  outgrow  the  credulity  of 
their  ignorant  and  superstitious  ancestors  '\  \\  ill  they 
never  aspire  to  mental  manhood?  Yes — rapidly  are 
the  masses  disencumbering  themselves  from  their  in- 
tellectual trammels.     The  shackles  of  priestcraft  al' 


116 


THE   GENUINENKSS  OF    THE   SCRIPTURES. 


ready  sit  loosely  around  them.  A  few  sliort  years  of 
dauntless  and  luiremitting  elibrt  on  the  part  of  the 
friends  of  mental  liberty,  and  the  dismal  temple  of  su- 
perstition and  delusion  will  totter  and  fall,  and  on  its 
ruins  will  be  seen  the  glorious  edifice  of  reason  and 
enlightenment.  The  day  will  then  really  have  ar- 
rived, wlien,  as  kSIicI ley  observes,  "falsehood's  trade 
will  be  as  hatel\d  and  unprolitable,  as  that  of  truth  is 


now. 


LECTXTRE    SEVENTH. 


PROPHECY. 


)■ 


Friends — 

I  SHALL  address  you  tliis  evening  on  the  subject  o{ 
Prophecy,  hi  the  estimation  of  many  Christians,  this 
is,  indubitably,  the  most  important,  interesthig,  and 
triumphant  evidence  in  favor  of  the  divmity  of  the 
Bible.  Others,  however,  and  they  include  some  of  the 
most  learned,  consider  that  considerable  doubt  and 
diificulty  surround  the  question.  Among  the  latter 
class,  are  divines  of  no  less  renown  than  Bishop  Wat- 
son, Belsham,   and  Bishop  Sherlock. 

Watson  admits,  that  "no  subject  requires  c?reater 
intellectual  energy  than  the  elucidation  of  j)rophecy. 
It  is  a  boisterous  sea  of  controversy.^^ — [Life  of  Wat- 
son, vol.  iii.,  p.  385. 

Belsham  observes,  in  his  Evidences,  pages  7G  and 
112,  "I  find  it  f/;/^'c?//^  to  satisfy  myself,  that  I  fully 
comprehend  the  true  meaning  and  extent  of  the  pro- 
phetic language.  To  understand  it  satisfactorily,  it 
must  be  proved— First,  that  the  Jews  ivere  favored 
^with  a  revelation  from  God;  Secondly,  That  their 
sacred  books  contain  a  scries  of  prophecies,  which  re- 
ceived their  proper  accomplishment  in  the  person  and 
character  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth  ;  and  to  the  validity  of 
this  argument,  there  must  be— First,  sufficient  evi- 
dence that  the  prophecy  was  delivered  prior  to  the 
event.      Secondly,   Tliat    the   event    was  beyond   the 


118 


I 


PROPHECY. 


reach  of  hitman  sagacity  to  foresee  or  calculate;  .^nd, 
Thirdly,  the  clear  and  })alpable  fiillilmeiit  of  tlib  pro- 
phecy ifi  the  event." 

In  subsequent  observations,  I  shall  show,  that  the 
Scripture  prophecies  do  not  conform  to  the  rules  of  the 
learned  gentleman,  and  therefore,  according  to  his  ar- 
gument, cannot  be  received. 

Bishop  Sherlock  declares,  in  his  Discourse,  page  31, 
"  that  many  of  the  latter  prophecies  are  still  dark  and 
obscure^  and  so  far  from  evidently  belonging  to  Christ, 
and  Christ  only,  that  it  requires  much  learning  and 
sagacity  to  show,  even  now,  the  connection  between 
some  prophecies  and  the  events." 

These  few  extracts,  from  (Christians  of  no  mean 
celebrity,  clearly  evince  the  great  ditliculty  the  jj?  test- 
hood  experience  in  attempting  to  establish  the  divinity 
of  their  Scriptures  upon  prophecy. 

Hence  we  find  that  some  of  the  most  laborious  and 
volinninous  writings  ever  published,  have  been  iq)on 
this  vague  and  speculative  topic.  Dr.  Keith  has 
waded  through  an  immense  mass  of  useless  learning 
and  idle  display,  in  order  to  prove  the  fulfilment  of  the 
])rophecies.  The  Rev.  Mr.  JVetts,  too,  though  he  pro- 
fesses to  have  compressed  his  arguments,  fills  a 
volume  of  816  pages,  with  a  Dissertation  upon  the 
subject;  aud  Bishop  Newton  has  presented  the  world 
with  a  production  of  1200  pages  on  the  same  question, 
and  yet  informs  his  readers  that  he  has  studied 
brec'dy  ! 

I  probably  may  be  considered  ungrateful,  after  the 
exercise  of  such  patience  and  research,  by  so  many 
learned  men,  when  I  say  that  1  deem  such  works  a 
complete  waste  of  time  and  paper — a  mass  of  religious 
rubbish. 

Were  the  whole  of  the  arguments  they  adduce,  in 
these  ponderous  volumes,  irrefragably  demonstrated, 
I  siill  maintain  they  have  done  nothini^  to  decide  the 
question  at  issue.  VV  ere  we  to  concede  all  that  these 
learned  gentlemen  require  —  were  we  to  allow  that 


PROPHECY. 


110 


f 


every  one  of  the  prophecies  from  Genesis  to  the  Reve- 
lations were  fulfilled  to  the  very  letter,  I  nevertheless 
aver  they  have  done  absolutely  nothing  to  decide  that 
the  Bible  is  the  word  of  God.  This  may  be  deemed 
a  somewhat  bold  and  unwarrantable  assumption  on 
my  part,  but  I  reiterate  it. 

My  reasons  for  making  an  assertion  so  unqualified, 
are,  first,  because  I  hold  that  prophecy  does  not  7icces- 
5a7%  imply  divine  inspiration.     Prophecies  may  be 
made,  and  may  be  fulfilled  without  divine  interposi- 
tion.    See  the  prophecies  of  the  oracles  of  Greece,  par- 
ticularly those  of  Diana  and  Delphos,  the  prophecies 
of  Lactantius,  St.  Cesaire,  Yirgil,  Seneca,    Dr.  John- 
son,   Napoleon,    Lord   Chesterfield,    and  the  Cornish 
propliecies,    recorded   by   Polewell,  in  his  history  of 
Cornwall,  and  Sir  John    Davis,    in   his  Discoveries, 
page  7/,  the  former  being  in  relation  to   the  destruc- 
tion of  Paul's  Church,  Penzance,  and  New  Lynn,  long 
before  they  were  in  existence;  and  the  latter,  relative 
to  the   subversion    of  Ireland.      Secondly,   prophecies 
are  not  peculiar  to  the  Christian  religion.     They  may 
be  found  in  the  '' sacred  "  writings  of  other  religions 
and  are  as  well  attested  as  the  Bible  prophecies,    l^ho 
celebrated  Hindoo  prophecy,  mentioned  by  Col.  Wilkes, 
in  his  Hindoo  sketches,  a  prophecy  singularly  fulfilled 
in  the  person  of  Sevajce,  the  conqueror  and  deliverer 
of  that  people,  is  a  ease  in  point.       Therefore,  if  pro- 
phecy   necessarily   implies     divine    inspiration,    these 
books  arc  inspired ;  and  hence  there  must  be  a  multi- 
plicity of  "divine  revelations "—"  words  of  God"  — 
an  idea  at  once  incongruous  and  absurd.     The  argu- 
ment  of  propliecy  leads  to  a  rcductio  ad  absurdum, 
and  therefore  cannot  be  considered  conclusive. 

What  IS  a  Prophecy?  Dr.  Johnson  says  that  it  is 
prediction,"  and  to  predict  is  to  '^  foretell:'  Now,  1 
af firm  that  the  power  of  foretelling  or  prognostication 
IS  in  the  possession  of  every  human  being,  according 
to  the  capacity  of  his  intellect,  and  the  extent  of  his 
knowledge  and  experience.     There  is  scarcely  a   day 


120 


PROPHECY. 


passes  but  every  individual  prophecies  more  or  less. 
I  will  appeal  to  your  every  day  experience,  whether 
you  have  not  repeatedly  affirmed  that  such  and  such 
circumstances  will  take  place,  and  whether  in  some 
instances,  at  leaat^  you  liave  not  found  j^ourself  cor- 
rect? 

So  far  as  your  prediction  was  verified,  so  far,  ac- 
cording to  the  logic  ot  the  orthodox,  were  you  inspired. 
Prophecy,  therelbre,  under  such  circumstances,  be- 
comes an  ordinary  rather  than  extraordinary  event — 
a  hmnati  rather  than  a  supcr-hunian  attainment ;.  and, 
consequently,  not  one  by  which  you  can  legitimately 
determine  the  divinity  of  Scripture. 

But  I  may  be  told  diat  the  "pious"  mean  only 
those  predictions  which  extend  to  himdreds  of  years, 
and  not  to  mere  local  and  passing  events.  (Granting 
this,  it  still  docs  not  improve  their  position,  for  precise- 
ly tlie  same  arguments  will  bear  against  tJils  view  of 
tlie  subject  as  the  other.  I  can  cite  cases,  if  it  be  ne- 
cessary, where  prophecies  have  been  made  by  men 
who  had  no  jnctensions  at  all  to  divine  inspnation, 
which  have  evidently  related  to  events  which  hap- 
pened centuries  subsccpient  to  the  time  of  prediction, 
and  which  did  happen.  See  the  case  of  St.  (.'esane. 
Bishop  of  Aries,  page  542,  given  in  a  book,  entitled, 
liiber  Mirabilis,  which  has  been  verified  at  the  King's 
Library,  at  Paris,  where  there  is  an  original.  His 
prophecy  is  in  relation  to  the  French  Revolution,  and 
is  quite  as  remarkable   as  any  in  the   Bible.       It  is  as 


follows 


The  administration  of  France  shall,  at  a 


future  and  distant  period,  be  so  blinded  that  they  shall 
leave  it  without  defenders  ;  the  hand  of  God  shall  ex- 
tend itself  over  them,  and  likewise  over  all  the  rich  ; 
all  the  7iobles  shall  be  deprived  of  their  estates  and 
division  shall  spring  up  in   the   clmrcli  of 


dignities 


(iod,  and  there  shall  be  tvv^o  husl)ands,  the  one  true 
and  the  other  adulterous — the  Ibrmer  shall  be  put  to 
flight.  There  shall  be  a  great  carnage^  and  as  great 
an  elfusion  of  blood  as  in  the  time  of  the  Gentiles. — 


PROPHECY. 


121 


The  universal  church,  and  the  whole  world  shall  de- 
plore the  ruin  of  a  celebrated  city,  the  capital  and  the 
mistress  of  France.  The  altars  of  the  temple  shall 
be  destroyed  :  the  holy  virgins  razed  out,  shall  fly 
from  their  convents,  and  the  church  shall  be  stripped 
of  her  temporal  goods  ;  but,  at  length,  the  black  eagle 
and  the  lion  shall  appear,  arriving  from  other  coun- 
tries. Then,  misery  be  to  thee,  oppressed  city  of 
opulence  !  Thou  shalt,  at  first,  rejoice,  but  thy  end 
shall  come.  Misery  be  to  thee,  O  city  of  philosophy  ! 
Thou  shalt  be  subjected  —  a  captive  Icings  humbled 
ciwn  to  the  dust^  shall,  at  last,  recover  his  crown,  and 
shall  destroy  the  city  of  impiety."  Such  is  the  extra- 
ordinary prophecy  of  St.  Cesaire.  Those  acquainted 
with  the  history  of  the  French  Revolution,  will  per- 
ceive its  applicability  to  that  memorable  event.  The 
editor  of  the  work,  from  which  this  prophecy  is  taken, 
shows  its  application  to  that  catastrophe,  in  the  fol- 
lowing lucid  manner:  "  The  vassal,  who  looked  not 
on  the  noble  as  his  natural  protector  and  guardian, 
but  as  an  oppressor,  arose  against  him,  the  soldier 
against  the  officer,  the  officer  against  the  general,  and 
the  servant  against  his  master.  Chaos  was  again  re- 
stored, the  holy  altars  were  overturned,  the  convents 
defiled  and  pillaged,  nobles  reduced  to  the  rank  of 
l)rivate  citizens,  to  save  even  life  itself  The  hum- 
blest of  citizens  and  menials  arose  to  power  and  des- 
potism— so  dreadfully  was  this  prophecy y////i//eG?.  At 
length,  even  the  hlack  eagle,  the  ensign  of  the  north- 
ern power,  and  the  lion,  that  of  Britain,  gained  pos- 
session of  Paris,  the  self-dignified  city  of  philosophy, 
strip})cd  her  of  her  ill-gotten  spoil,  and,  as  a  punish- 
ment of  her  abuse  of  power  over  other  States,  caused 
again  to  reign  over  her  a  king,  that  may  have  been 
truly  said  to  have  been  huml)led  even  to  tlie  dust.^^ 

This  prophecy  is  worth  all  the  Bible-prophecies  put 
together.  Not  one  of  them  are  fulfilled  so  literally. — 
And  yet  it  is  made  by  one  who  had  no  pretensions  to 
divine  inspiration  ;  made  too,    more  tliaii  1200  years 

11 


122 


PROPHECY. 


before  the  circumstances  referred  to,  occurred  !  Fak  iii g, 
then,  the  word  prophecy,  either  m  a  hunted  or  extend- 
ed signification,  the  arguments  of  the  orthodox,  bubtd 
upon  that  kuid  of  evidence,   are  neutralized    and   in- 

vahdated. 

Having  shown  that  the  testimony  of  prophecy  is 
inadmissible  lu  deciding  the  diviniti/  of  the  Bible,  we 
shall  proceed  to  prove  that,  even  granting  that  this 
evidence  is  conclusive,  the  Scripture  propiiecies  are 
not  of  a  nature  to  demonstrate  that  the  book  is  divine. 
I  have   four  distinct  objections  to  these  prophecies  :— 

1.  That  many  of  them  were  not  written  until  after 
the  events  prophccied  had  occurred,  which  I  conceive 
to  be  a  very  ^'■ood  objection. 

2.  Their  vague  and  indefinite  character,  proving 
that  they  could  not  be  given  by  inspiration  from  am- 

IllSClCHCC. 

3.  That  those  prophecies  which  are  clear  and  dis- 
tinct have  not  been  fuljilled. 

4.  The  lying  character  of  the  Bible  prophets. 

In  reference  to  this  last  objection,   ample   evidence 
will  be  found  in  its  support,  in  Hosea,  chap,  ix.,  verses 
7  8,  where  the  prophet  is  denounced  as  ^  fool  and  a 
snare;  Micah,  chap,  iii.,  verses  5  and  11,  where  it  is 
said  the   prophets  only  divine  for  money  nnd  deceive 
the  people  :  Lamentations  of  Jeremiah,  chap,  ii.,  v.  14, 
they  told  vain  and  foolish  things  ;  Isaiah,  chap,   ix., 
verses  15   and  28,   verse  7,   it  is  said   they  teach  lies 
and  are  dninken,     (This  quite  agrees  with  the  Chris- 
tian DodwelFs  statement,  that  they  prepared   them- 
selves to  prophecy  by  drinking  wine.     They  might 
well  get  drnnk.     They  were  indeed   "  sjjiritualists.'') 
Zachariah,  chap,xiii.,  verses  2  and  4,  gives  the  pleas- 
two- intelhgence  that  the   "Lord"   will   root  them  all 
out  of  the  land,  and  make  them  ashamed  of^  them- 
selves ;  1  Kings,   chap,  xxii.,  verses  22,   23;  Ezekiel, 
chap,  xiv.,  v.  9  ;  Jeremiah,  chap,  xx.,  v.  7,  God  himself 
is  represented  not  only  as  deceiving  the  prophets,  and 
causing  them  to  err,  but  instructing  them  in  the  art 


PROPHECY. 


123 


and  mystery  of  lying!  What  confidence  can  be 
placed  in  such  a  gang  of  liars  and  impostors,  who 
were  always  squabbling  among  themselves  and  ac- 
cusing each  other  of  lying  and  deceiving?  They 
were  like  our  modern  (^uacks,  who  cry  "  Take  my 
pills  and  beware  of  counterfeits^ 

With  respect  to  the  remaining  three  objections,  tliey 
Avill  be  substantiated  in  the  course  of  my  remarks  on 
the  respective  predictions.  1  shall,  of  course,  only 
notice  the  more  important.  If  these  be  invalidated, 
the  minor  fall  with  them. 

The  dispersion  of  the  Jens  is  the  first  prophecy  I 
shall  notice.  It  is  given  in  Dent.  chap,  xxviii.  This 
prophecy  the  Christians  allirm  is  the  most  remarkable 
on  record.  I  can  only  say  that  had  it  been  given  so 
early  as  stated,  it  would  have  been  worthy  of  notice. 
Bnt  such  was  not  the  fact.  Moses  did  not  write  Deu- 
teronomy. We  have  proved,  in  previous  addresses, 
that  the  Pentateuch  was  not  mentioned  until  after  the 
Babylonian  captivity,  and  that  Ezra  must  have  been 
the  writer  of  these  books.  Now.  Ezra  flourished  only 
400  ijcftrs  before  Christ,  after  the  Jews  had  been  dis- 
membered, and  lived  in  slavery  for  years.  It  was  no 
diflicult  task,  therefore,  at  that  time,  to  predict  their 
dispersion.  The  wonder,  in  fact,  would  have  been  if 
it  had  been  predicted  that  they  would  not  liave  been 
dispersed.  But  even  supposing  Moses  had  been  the 
writer,  there  is  nothing  in  the  prophecy  so  singularly 
remarkable — nothing  beyond  the  grasp  of  human  fore- 
sight. The  Jews,  from  time  immemorial,  were  ex- 
ceedingly rebellious,  cruel,  insolent,  and  pragmatical ; 
and  Moses,  therefore,  might  easily  have  anticipated 
that  the  first  great  nation  which  arose  would  attempt 
their  subjection,  in  which  they  would  easily  succeed, 
the  Jews,  with  all  their  audacity  and  brutality,  being 
naturally  cowards.  It  required  no  divine  inspiration 
to  foretell  such  events.  As  striking  prognostications 
iiave  been  given  m  relation  to  other  nations,  by  wri- 
ters not  presuming  to  miraculous  agency,  and  which 


I 


121 


PROPHECY. 


have  proved  true.  This  prophecy,  therefore,  if  ful- 
filled to  the  very  letter,  by  iio  means  establishes  the 
divinity  of  Scripture.  . 

Unfortunately,  however,  there  are  parts  ot  this  pre- 
diction, and  they  are  the  most  exphcit,  which  have 
not  been  fulfilled.  In  verse  (34,  it  states  that  the  Jews 
when  scattered  shall  worship  other  gods,  which  neith- 
er they  nor  their  lathers  had  known,  "even  wood  and 
stone."  But  is  such  the  case  I  Do  they  worsliip  such 
gods  now  that  they  are  scattered  I  On  the  contrary, 
is  it  not  proverbial,  that  the  .lews  are  the  most  tena- 
cious of  the  religion  of  their  forefathers  of  any  people 

upon  earth  ? 

And,   again,  in  verse  15,    we  are  told  that  the  Jews 
shall  experience  this  misery  and  subjection  for   their 
disobedience  of  his  (.Moses's)  ritual.     Is  such  the  real 
reason  of  their  present  dispersion?     Conlessedly  not. 
It  is  owing  to  the  jx^wer  of  the  l^gyptians  in  the   lirst 
instance,  then  the  Uhaldcans,  and  thence  down  to  the 
Romans.       it  was  these  causes,  combined  with   their 
national  character,  that  led  to  their  present  condition. 
Apart,  however,  from  these  considerations,  this  proph- 
ecy cannot  be  fulfilled  until  the  Jews  are  restored.— 
We  are  told,  chap,  xxx.,   that  the  Lord    "  will  gather 
them  from  all  nations,  whereunto  he  hath  scattered 
them.''     Jlas  he  done  so?     Are  the  Jews   restored? 
True,   there  has  been  an  idle  rumor  abroad  of  late, 
that  some  parties  were  going  to  pitrchase  Jerusalem, 
in  which  the  Jews  might  assemble,  and  thus  verity 
the  prediction.       But  "  don't  they  wish  they  may  get 
it,"  as  the  somewhat  vulgar  adage  has  it  ?      If  they 
do,  it  only  shows  that  prophecies  are  marketnhle  com- 
niodilies— things  that  may  be  bought  and  sold.    Such 
proimostications  depend  for  fulfilment,  not  \^\yo\\  dieir 
sinntnaL   but  money  value— not  upon  their   "  divmc 
mspiration/'   but  upon  wiiat   they  will  sell  for— no 

more.  . 

in  chap,  xlix.,  v.  10,  of  Genesis,  there  is  the  follow- 
ing passage  which  has  been   twisted  by  our  priests 


I' 


#• 


PROPHECY. 


125 


into  a  prophecy  of  the  cmmiff  of  Christ  :—^^  The 
sceptre  shall  not  depart  from  .hidah,  nor  a  lawgiver 
from  between  his  feet,  until  Shiloh  come,  and  imto 
him  shall  the  gaihermg  of  the  people  be."  It  remains 
to  be  proved  that  the  word  Shiloh  signifies  Christ,  and 
could  apply  to  no  one  else.  Besides,  it  is  uol  true  that 
the  sceptre  was  wielded  by  the  tribe  of  Judah  at  the 
time  Jesus  is  said  to  have  appeared,  for  long  before 
that  period  the  Jews  had  submitted  to  the  Romans. — 
'IMiey  had,  also,  before  that,  been  in  captivity  to  the 
Assyrians  for  seventy  years,  during  which  it  cannot 
be  pretended  that  a  vestige  of  royalty  remained  in 
Judah,  or  in  any  other  of  the  tribes.  This  prediction, 
therefore,  cannot  apply  to  Christ ;  or,  if  it  does,  the 
prophecy  is  an  utter  failure.  Moreover,  whether  the 
prediction  be  true  or  false,  it  could  not  have  been  giv- 
en by  Jacol),  as  stated  in  this  chapter,  for  Ac  could  not 
know  that  tJie  Jews  were  ever  ruled  by  a  sceptre,  as 
Saul,  the  first  Jewish  king,  did  not  live  until  hundreds 
of  years  after  Jacob. 

Wc  must  now  notice  tlie  famous  passage  in   Isaiah, 
chap,   vii.,  v.  11,  another  prophecy  of  the  coming  of 
Christ.      It  begins,    "  Behold  a  virgin  shall  conceive 
and  bear  a  son,"  iVc.    If  this  has  any  reference  to  the 
apiwarance  of  Christ,  it  is  exceedingly  strange  that  it 
should  be  so  vague  and  indefinite  in  all  the  details. — 
It  is  utterly  destitue  of  all  the  properties  of  perspicu- 
ous prediction — a  fact  which  ])rovcs  that  it  could  have 
no  relation  to  such  an  important  event  as  the  birth  of 
the  "Son  of  Cod."       The  only  thing  definite  in   this 
memorable  prophecy   is  the  name  of  the  child  to  be 
born,  which  is  not  Christ.     The  name  of  the  mother 
of  the  child  is  not  stated,  nor  any  of  the  circumstances 
said  to  be  connected  with  the  birth  of  "our  Siiviour." 
Several  more  enlightened  Christians  are  now  aban- 
doning this  once  pet'prophecy  as  untenable.    Michael- 
is,  the  learned  Christian  professor,  says  (p.  212,)  he 
"cannot  be  persuaded  that   the  famous  prophecy  in 
Isaiah,  chap,  vii.,  v.  14,  has  the  least  reference  to  the 

11* 


126 


PROPHECY. 


Messiah."  The  .Tews,  themselves,  who  oiisht  to  im- 
derstciiid  the  nieaiiiug  of  tlieir  own  book,  most  solemn- 
ly deny  that  this  prophecy  refers  to  Jesus  Christ.— 
*^  These  prophecies,"  say  they,  in  "  Israel  vmdicated, 
1S23,  "  have  repeatedly  been  shown  by  our  llabbis  to 
have'a  different  meaning  from  that  given  them  by  the 
Christians,  which  it  is  impossible  for  any  one  to  mis- 
take whose  mind  is  not  predisposed  to  shut  out  the 
h<dit  of  truth."  They  charge  the  Christians,  m  bol. 
Bennett's  Reply,  1809,  with  having  "changed,  in  the 
original,  nouns,  verbs,  tenses  and  meanings ! 

The  real  nature  of  this  celebrated  passage  will  be 
seen  on  reading  the  context.  You  will  perceive  that 
it  has  not  the  slightest  reference  to  the  coming  of  a 
Messiah  some  700  years  subsequent  to  the  time  of 
Isaiah,  but  only  to  mere  local  and  immediate  events. 
The  plain  meaning  is  simply  this :— The  King  of 
Syria,  and  the  King  of  Israel,  (for,  at  this  period,  the 
Jews  were  divided  under  two  kings)  made  war/om^ 
airainst  Ahaz,  King  of  Judah,  and  marched  their^  ar- 
mies towards  Jerusalem,  the  capital  of  Ahaz.  The 
latter,  with  his  people,  were  alarmed;  and,  according 
to  verse  2,  "Their  hearts  were  moved,  as  trees  of 
Wood  are  moved  with  the  wind."  At  this  moment 
the  propliet  Isaiah  addressed  himself  to  Ahaz,  in  the 
usual  cant  parlance,  "The  name  of  the  l^ord,"  as- 
suring him  that  these  two  kings  should  not  succeed 
against  him.  To  convince  Ahaz  that  this  should  be 
the  case.  Isaiah  requested  him,  as  was  die  practice  of 
the  prophets  at  that  period,  to  ask  a  sign.  He  declined, 
however,  stating,  as  a  reason,  that  he  would  not 
"tempt  the  Lord."  Isaiah  then  said,  as  given  in 
verse  14,  "Therefore,  the  Lord  himself  shall  give  yoii 
a  sign,  behold  a  virgni  shall  conceive  and  bare  a  son," 
and  verse  16  states,  "And  before  this  child  shall 
know  to  refuse  the  evil  and  choose  the  good,  the  land 
which  thou  abhorrcst  (meaning  Syria  and  the  king- 
dom of  Israel),  shall  be  forsaken  of  both  her  kings ; 
and  It  shall  come  to  pass,   that  the  Lord  shall  hiss 


PROPHECY. 


127 


(why  not  whistle?)  for  the  flies  that  are  in  the  brooks 
of  Egypt,  and  for  the  bees  that  are  in  the  land  of  Sy- 
ria." A  pity  but  the  "  Lord  "  could  have  found  some- 
thing better  to  do  !  But  the  story  continues,  "  In  the 
same  day  shall  the  Lord  shave  with  a  razor  that  is 
hired,  viz..  by  them  that  is  beyond  the  river,  by  the 
King  of  Assyria,  the  head  and  the  hair  of  the  feet, 
and  it  shall  also  consume  the  beard." 

Here,  then,  was  the  sign,  and  the  time  limited  for 
the  performance  of  the  prophecy ;  viz.,  before  the 
child  could  distinguish  the  good  from  the  evil.  It 
was  necessary  for  the  prophet  to  see  to  the  fulfilment 
of  his  prediction;  and,  accordingly,  we  are  told,  in 
the  next  chap.,  verses  2  and  3,  that  Isaiah  got  the 
prophetess  with  child,  which,  when  born,  was  to  be 
called  (by  command  of  the  Lord,  of  course,)  by  the 
strange  name  of  Mahei'-shalal-hash-baz.  Thus  was 
this  absurd  and  obscene  prediction  verified. 

The  evangelist,  Matthew,  and  the  Christian  priest- 
hood after  him,  pretend  to  found  the  theory  of  what 
they  call  the  gospel,  upon  this  silly  and  indecent  tale. 
They  pretend  to  apply  it  to  the  birth  of  a  person  who 
lived  700  years  subsequent  to  this  period.  Is  not  such 
gross  perversion  calculated  to  sicken  every  enlighten- 
ed mind  with  Christianity  7 

It  is  only  necessary  to  read  Book  2,  of  Chronicles, 
chap,  xxviii.,  where  the  rest  of  this  story  is  given,  to 
find  the  impositioii  which  Isaiah  practised  upon  poor 
Ahaz.  Instead  of  these  two  kings  falling,  as  he  as- 
sured Ahaz  tliey  would,  Aliaz  himself  was  beaten, 
and  his  army  destroyed. 

To  say  that  this  prophecy  refers  to  Christ,  is  as 
much  as  to  assert,  that  Isaiah  would  tell  Ahaz  that 
these  two  kings  should  not  prevail  against  him  until 
a  child  was  born,  700  years  after  he  was  in  his  "  final 
resting-place." 

The  Jewish  priesthood  maintain,  that  the  sign  al- 
luded to,  in  this  passage,  was  only  the  wife  of  Isaiah, 
as  the  Hebrew  word  for  virgin,  alma,  was  applied, 
not  un frequently,  to  married  women. 


128 


PROPHECY. 


We  shall  now  remark  upon  that  favorite  prophecy 
of  the  Christians,  relative  to  the  birth-place  of  Christ. 
It  is  said  to  have  been  made  by  the  prophet,    Micah, 
as  recorded  in  chap,  v.,  ver.  2,  of  the  l^ook  having  his 
name.     -' Bnt  thon,  Bethlehem  Ephrata,   though  thou 
be  little  among  the  thousands  of  Jndah,  yet  out  of  thee 
shall  he  como  forth  unto  me,  that  is  to  be  ruler  in  Is- 
rael ;   whose  goings  forth  have  been  from  of  old,  from 
everlasting."     The  evangelist,   Matthew,    pretends  to 
quote  this  passage  in  chap,  i.,  though  he  (juotes  it  in 
a  very  incorrect  and  bungling  manner,  and  applies  it 
to  the  birth  of  Christ  in  Bethlehem.     It  is  easy  to  be 
seen,  however,  by  any  one  who  will   use   his  own  in- 
tellect, and  not  pay  other   men  for  thinking   for   him, 
that  this  passage  can  have  no  reference  to  such  a  per- 
son as  Jesus  Christ ;  for  it  is  stated  in  ver.  5,  of  the 
same  chapter,   that,    "This   man,   (meaning   he  who 
was  to  be  ruler  in  Israel,)  shall  be  at   peace  when  the 
Assyrian  shall  come  into  our  land;  and  when  he  shall 
tread  in  our  palaces,   then  shall  we  raise  up  against 
him,  (that  is,  against  the  Assyrian,)  seven   shepherds 
and  eight  principal  men."     And  in  ver.  6,   it  stales, 
*' And  they  shall  waste  the  land  of  Assyria  with  the 
sword,  and  the  land  of  Nimrod,  on  the  entrance  there- 
of: thus  shall  he,  (the  person  spoken   of,)   deliver  us 
from  the  Assyrian,  when  he  cometh  into  our  land,  and 
when  he  treadeth  within   our  borders."     These  pas- 
sages evidently  refer   to  a  iniUtary  chief,  and  cannot 
mea!i  Christ.     The  circumstances  of  the  times  spoken 
of,  and  those  in  which  Christ  lived,  are  in  contradic- 
tion to  each  other.    Strange  to  say,  it  was  the  Romans, 
and  not  the  Assyrians,  (a  very  different  people,)  who 
were  in  the  land  of  Judea,  and  ''trod  in  their  pala- 
ces," at  the  period  Christ   is  said   to   have   been   born 
and  died  ;    and,   so  far  from  he  driving  them  out,  it 
was  under  them  that  he  suffered  death.      They  drove 
him  out  pretty  effectually,  and  held  possession  of  the 
land  long  afterwards.     These  facts,   therefore,   abso- 
\n\Q\Y  falsify  the  prophecy  that  it  applies  to  Christ— 


PROPHECY. 


129 


«h 


t 


proves,  that  like  the  other  propliecics  of  this  book  of 
absurdities^-it  is  no  prophecy  at  all. 

We  will  briefly  remark   upon  ihe  prophecy  of  the 
destruction  of  l^abylon,   in  Isaiah,  chap.  xiii.     Chris- 
tians   are  particularly   fond   of  this  prediction.      Dr. 
Keith  devotes  nearly  100  pages  to    this   subject.     We 
hold,   notwithstandmg  the   dogmatism  of  the  Doctor, 
that  this  prognostication  was  not  given  until  after  the 
event   had  really  occiUTcd,  or  about  the  time;  and. 
therefore,  could  be  no  prediction  at  all.     I   aflirm  this 
upon  the  fact  that  the  Book  of  Isaiah,   in  which  this 
prophecy  is  recorded,  was  not  written  until   that  pe- 
riod.    We  are  taught  by  the  Christian  priesthood,   to 
believe  that  the  Book  of  Isaiah   was  composed   some 
730  years  before  Christ,  while,  in  reality,  it  could  not 
have  been  in  existence  until  two  centuries  subsequent 
to  that  date,  wliich  will   bring  us   to   the   period  of 
Babylon's  downfall.     In  the  latter  part  of  chap,  xliv., 
and  beginning  of  xlv.,  reference  is  made  to  Cyrus,  al- 
lowing the  .Tews  to  return  to  Jerusalem.     This  event 
did  not  take  place  until  the  year  536,  b.  c.,  about  170 
years  after  Isaiah's  death.     I,  therefore,  deduce  three 
circumstances  from  this  fact.  First,  that  the  book  called 
Isaiah, was  not  written  by  him.  Secondly,  that  it  could 
not  have  been  written  until  nearly  200  years  after  his 
time.     And,  thirdly,  being  composed   at  that  period, 
the  prophecy  of  the  demolition  of  the  famous  city  in 
question,  could  not  have  been  given   until  either  du- 
ring the  catastrophe,   or  subsequent  to  it ;  and  conse- 
quently, can  be  no  prediction  at  all.     How  the  Chris- 
tian clergy  can  have  the  audacity  to  present   such   a 
passage  as  an  evidence  of  divine  inspiration,  I   know 
not,  except    that  upon  these  points,  the  points  of  re- 
ligion, they  are  destitute  of  all  shame! 

In  reference  to  the  prophecy  of  Daniel,  chap,  ix., 
ver.  24 — 27,  about  the  seventy  weeks,  and  its  appli- 
cation to  Christ  —  of  which  Christian  priests  have 
talked  so  exultingly  — little  need  be  said  to  show  its 
untenability.  Dr.  Francis  has  set  this  question  at 
rest.     My  time,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  will  not  admit  of 


130 


PROPHECY. 


my  giving  the  Doctor's  remarks,  as  they  are  very 
elaborate.  1  may  simply  observe,  that  it  cannot  ap- 
ply to  Jesns  Christ ;  for,  if  from  the  going  forth  of  the 
commandment  in  the  timeof  Artaxerxcs  Longimanus, 
until  the  coming  of  the  Messiah,  there  were  to  be 
seven  weeks,  or  forty-nine  years,  (the  seventy  weeks 
are  supposed  to  moan  seven  years  each,)  how  docs 
this  agree  with  wliat  follows,  ver.  26,  "  After  tlireescorc 
and  two  weeks,  (or  more  than  100  years,)  shall  Mes- 
siah be  cut  olf  ?  "  And,  again — "  lie  shall  confirm  the 
covenant  with  many  /or  a  v:eek^'''  ver.  27.  Did,  then, 
Jesus  Christ  live  more  than  400  years  ]  Or,  did  he 
confirm  any  covenant  with  many  for  seven  years  '] — 
Most  certainly  not.  Christ's  ministry  did  not  continue 
longer  than  threc-and-a-half  years  ;  or,  according  to 
some  learned  divines,  not  longer  than  Vi  fwdvc-month  ; 
and  his  lifetime,  altogether,  only  extended  to  thirty- 
three  years.  Dr.  Francis  shows  that  it  is  Judas  Mac- 
cabees, the  deliverer  of  the  Jews — and  not  of  Christ, 
that  the  prophet  speaks.  Clement  Alexandrinus,  Cal- 
met  and  other  Christian  writers  flatly  deny  the  appli- 
cation of  the  weeks  of  Daniel  to  Jesus.  Those  who 
maintain  die  allirmative,  lose  sight  of  the  context,  for- 
get chronology,  and  evince  to  what  a  pitch  of  delu- 
sion their  minds  have  arrived. 

The  favorite  Christian  prophecy  is  that  given  by 
Christ,  in  Matthew,  chap.  xxiv.  He  foretells  the  de- 
struction of  Jerusalem.  There  is  nothing,  we  con- 
ceive, at  all  remarkable  in  this  prediction.  Any  man, 
of  ordinary  foresight,  might  have  anticipated  such  an 
event,  taking  into  consideration  the  character  of  the 
Jews,  and  the  position  of  surrounding  nations.  Rome 
was  then  the  mistress  of  the  world.  She  had  deluged 
Europe  with  blood — darkened  it  with  desolation — and 
was  still  disposed  to  crush  every  empire  that  might 
deny  her  supremacy.  Knowing  this,  and  being  aware 
of  the  insolent  and  rebellious  character  of  the  Jews, 
it  was  quite  natural  that  Christ,  or  any  other  person 
might  have  predicted  the  demolition  of  Jerusalem.  It 
would  have  been  a  miracle  had  it  not  been  destroyed. 


^} 


PROPHECY. 


131 


What  was  the  fact  ?  The  Jews  rebelled  against  the 
Roman  authority ;  the  consequence  being,  "their  city 
was  destroyed,  and  they  were  scattered.  Is  there 
anythmg  extraordinary  in  this  7  Is  there  anything 
requiring  divine  inspiration  to  foresee?  Evidently 
not.  But  what  proof  have  we  that  this  prophecy  was 
given  before  the  event?  I  challenge  the  Christians  to 
produce  it.  We  know  that  Matthew,  in  which  this 
prediction  is  recorded,  as  well  as  the  other  gospels, 
were  not  mentioned  as  having  existence  earlier  than 
the  year  182,  or,  as  some  divines  held,  192,  a.  d.,  as 
shown  at  length  in  my  second  and  last  address.  This 
would  be  more  than  a  century  after  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem,  that  event  occurring  a.  d.,  70.  How  mod- 
est to  state  that  a  prophecy  is  given  in  a  book  which 
was  not  known  till  more  than  100  years  after  the 
event  predicted  had  actually  happened  !  How  easy 
to  manufacture  a  good  prophecy  under  such  circum- 
stances !  I  may  be  told,  Matthew  is  supposed  to  have 
been  written  a.  d.,  G  1.  Yes — supposed,  and  a  very 
necessary  supposition,  I  should  think,  for  the  safety 
of  the  prophecy.  But  is  mere  conjecture  to  be  taken 
^s  proof  J  Of  course,  when  it  suits  the  interests  of 
priests.  However,  we  will  suppose  as  they  desire  in 
this  instance — and  what  then '?  Why,  it  brings  the 
book  to  have  been  written  only  six  years  before  the 
event  prophecied  took  place  !  What  wonderfid  sagaci- 
ty— what  a  large  dose  of  inspiration  it  would  require 
to  foresee  such  an  event  at  such  an  immense  distance 
of  time!  What  a  pity  the  priests  had  supposed  the  date 
of  its  composition  to  be  a  little  earlier !  but  even  they 
had  not  the  impudence  even  to  suppose  such  as  thing. 
But  whether  this  prophecy  was  given  before  or  after 
the  event,  it  was  not  fulfdled ;  and,  therefore,  can  be 
no  evidence  in  favor  of  the  divinity  of  the  Bible.  We 
must  take  into  account  the  whole  of  the  prophecy,  and 
we  shall  discover  it  is  a  most  miserable  failure.  In 
verses  20,  30,  and  34,  it  states,  "  Immediately  after 
the  tribulation  of  those  days  (that  is,  the  destruction 
of  Jerusalem),   shall  the  sun  be  darkened,   and   the 


r 


132 


PROPHECY. 


PROPHECY. 


13:^ 


moon  shall  not  give  her  light,  and  the  stars  shall  fall 
from  heaven,  and  the  powers  of  the  heavens  sliall  be 
shaken  ;  and  then  there  shall  appear  the  sign  of  ilie 
son  of  man  in  heaven ;  and  then  shall  all  the  tribes 
of  the  ear  til  mourn,  and  they  sliall  see  the  son  of 
man  coming  in  the  clouds  of  heaven  with  power  and 
great  glory,  and  he  shall  send  his  angels  with  a  great 
sound  of  the  trumpet ;  and  they  shall  gather  together 
the  elect  from  the  four  winds,  from  one  end  of  lieavcn 
to  the  other.  Verili/,  I  say  unto  you.  this  getie7\Uiou 
shall  not  pass  aicay  till  ALL  these  things  are  fnl- 
Jilled.^^  Here  is  a  prophecy  so  clear  and  distinct  that 
there  is  no  mistaking  its  meaning.  But  was  it  ful- 
filled f  Is  the  world  destroyed  ?  Your  presence  here 
this  moment  is  a  living  denial.  Not  only  has  that 
generation  "passed  away,"  but  7/i«W7/,  and  still  the 
world  is  not  at  an  end.  The  sun  has  not  been  dark- 
ened, nor  has  the  moon  ceased  to  give  her  light,  and 
the  stars  still  shine  in  brilliant  splendor,  as  if  in  mock- 
ery of  such  a  monstrous  prediction.  They  still  ride 
in  triumph  through  the  fields  of  space,  spreading  light 
and  warmth  to  an  admiring  world.  O  !  Christians, 
where  is  your  modesty — your  honesty  in  declaring 
such  passages  as  a  divine  prognostication,  when  every 
moment  of  your  lives  belies  the  prediction?  O!  when 
will  you  blush  at  your  unparalleled  impudence?  But 
what  say  you  of  the  Second  Advent  ?  Did  Christ 
appear  again  immediately  after  the  siege  of  Jerusalem, 
as  predicted  in  this  prophecy"?  Was  he  seen  "com- 
ing in  the  clouds  of  heaven  with  power  and  great 
glory?"  gathering  together  '-the  elect"  from  the 
four  winds,  irom  one  end  of  heaven  to  the  other? — 
No  !  He  never  appeared.  No  such  phenomena  were 
exhibited.  And  yet  "«// these  things"  were  to  hap- 
pen before  that  generation  had  passed  away  !  Hov/ 
monstrous  to  affirm  such  a  prediction  to  be  fulfilled  ! 
None  but  priests  or  their  dupes  could  commit  such  lui 
audacious  outrage  upon  experience  and  common  sense. 
One  more  prophecy,  and  I  have  done.  In  Mark, 
chap,    xvi.,  Christ  is  represented   assaying,    "Go  ye 


4 


imto  all  the  world,  and  preach  the  gospel  to  every 
creature.  He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized,  shall  t)e 
saved,  but  he  that  believeth  not,  shall  be  damned. — 
And  these  signs  shall  follow  them  that  believe  :  in  my 
name  they  .shall  cast  out  devils,  (a  very  respectable 
trade,  truly  !)  they  shall  speak  with  new  tongues  ;  they 
shall  take  up  serpents,  and  if  they  drink  any  deadly 
poison,  it  shall  not  hurt  them  ;  they  shall  lay  hands 
on  the  sick  and  they  shall  recover." 

Da  such  things  attend  those?  who  believe  in  Christ? 
Can  Christians  cast  out  devils  ?  If  they  could,  there 
would  be  less  need  of  the  parsons.  Can  they  take 
poison  with  impunity  ?  Doctors^  I  have  no  doubt, 
would  then  be  at  a  discount.  ^  Can  they  play  with 
serpents  with  impunity?  Can  they  lay  their  hands 
on  the  sick  and  they  will  recover?  Can  they  do  any 
of  these  things?  It  is  a  mockery  to  ask  the  (luestion. 
Here,  then,  is  the  plainest  prophecy  in  the  whole  of 
the  Bible,  and  given  by  Christ  hi:ii.sclf,  proved  to  l)e 
an  absolute,  unqualified,  downright  failure  ! 

To  expose  more  of  these  prophecies  in  one  discourse, 
would  be  impossil>le;  and,  if  possible,  would  be  un- 
necessary. The  rest  are  more  or  less  dependent  upon 
these,  and  must  stand  or  fall  with  them.  They  dis- 
play the  most  impudent  perversion  of  language  and 
sense,  and  amusnigly  exhibit  the  marvellous  ability 
of  our  theologians  in  prophecy-making.  To  show 
their  inveterate  propensity  to  prediction-mongcring,  I 
need  but  mention,  that  John  Hawkins,  l^sq.  proves 
that  Britain  is  the  kingdom  which  Daniel  declarer 
God  will  set  up  !  Captain  John  Maitland  illustrntcs 
the  prophecies  of  Daniel  by  Revelations  !  J.  H.  Freio, 
Esq.  proves  that  Daniel,  Lsdras,  and  St.  John,  havo 
Ixjen  accomplished  in  the  life  of  Bonaparte ;  and  the 
ex-King  of  Sweden  pronounces  F?f>naparle  to  be  the 
beast  in  Revelations  !  Dr.  Winston,  a  celel)rate(l  pro- 
fessor, of  Cambridge^  ronsidc  rod  that  .Mary  Tofts 
having,  according  to  p<)pular  belief,  brought  forth  rab- 
bits, was  an  accompli.-^hnujut  of  a  prophecy  in  Dbdriui ! 

1'^ 


134 


PROPHECY. 


Mr.  Faber  engages  in  wholesale  discoveries  of  this 
kind,  while  his  friend,  Mr.  Burt,  helps  hnn  in  the  re- 
tail trade,  saynig,  "  that  appearances  give  considera- 
ble weight  to  Dr.  Faber's  supposition  of  the  battle  of 
Armageddon,  in  the  holy  land;  and  thus  an  Irish 
legislator,  (when  deranged,)  insisted  that  Armaged- 
don meant  Armagh,  because,  in  the  Apocalyptic  ver- 
sion, something  is  incidentally  said  oijiiie  linen!'' 

I  shall  conclude  this  discourse,  by  a  brief  quotation 
from  a  man  who  has  done  most  in  uprooting  the  in- 
iquitous dominion   of  priestcraft    and  superstition. — 
Thomas  .Paine,  that  immortal  writer,  shrewdly  ob- 
serves :   -'  According   to  the  modern  meaning  of  the 
word    prophecy,    and  prop>hecying,  it   signifies  fore- 
telling events  to  a  great  distance  of  time,  and  it  be- 
came necessary  to  the  inventors  of  the  gospel,  to  give 
it  this  latitude  of  meaning,    in  order  to  apply,  or  to 
stretch  what  they  call  the  prophecies  of  the  Old  Tes- 
tament to  those  of  the  New.     But,  according  to  the 
Old  Testament,  the  prophecying  of  the  seer,  and  after- 
wards of  the  prophet,  so  far  as  the  word  seer  was  in- 
corporated into  that  of  the  prophet,  had  reference  only 
to  the  things  then  passing,   or  very  closely  connected 
with  it,  such  as  the  event  of  a  battle  they  were  going 
to  engage  in,  or  of  a  journey,   or  of  an  enterprise  they 
were  going  to  undertake,  or  of  any  circumstance  then 
pending,  or  of  any  difficulty  they  were  then  in,   all  of 
which  had  immediate  reference  to  themselves,  (as  in 
the  case  already  mentioned,  of  Ahaz  and  Isaiah,   with 
respect  to  the  expression,   '  Behold,  a  virgin  shall  con- 
ceive, and  bear  a  son,'  &c.,)  and  not  to  any   distant 
future  time.     It  was  that  kind  of  prophecying,    that 
corresponds   to  what  we  call  fortime-telling  ;  such  as 
casting  nativities,  predicting  riches,  fortunate  or  un- 
fortunate marriages,  conjuring  for  lost  goods,  &xi.,  and 
it  is  the  priest  of  the  Christian  church,  not  that  of  the 
Jews,  and  the  ignorance  and  superstition   of  modern, 
not  that  of  ancient  times,  that  elevated  these  poetical,' 
musical,    conjuring,   dreaming,   strolling  gentry,   into 
the  rank  they  have  since  held.'' 


T 


i 


LECTURE  EIGHTH. 


MIRACLES. 


Friends — 

The  subject  upon  which  I  propose  to  address  you 
this  evening,  is  Miracles.  The  mass  of  Christians, 
especially  the  ignorant  and  credulous,  attach  supreme 
importance  to  this  testimony,  wliile  a  few  of  the  more 
advanced  are  disposed  to  rest  their  faith  entirely  upon 
other  evidence.  In  this  class,  we  find  Bishop  New- 
ton, Foster,  Desvaeux,  Cardinal  dc  Retz,  Dr.  Middle- 
ton,  and  Bishop  Fleetwood.  These  gentlemen  recom- 
mend Christians  to  ^'reject  miracles,  —  nay,  10,000 
miracles,  let  them  be  ever  so  well  attested,  if  they 
sanction  any  doctrine  contrary  to  truth,  reason  and 
morality."  "For,  otherwise,"  says  Mr.  Desvaeux, 
in  his  Treatise  on  Miracles,  "  we  should  never  have 
done  examining  miracles."  The  Cardinal  de  Retz  re- 
marks, when  rejecting  a  celebrated  Catholic  miracle, 
*'  it  was  not  necessary,  in  order  to  reject  a  facf  of  this 
kind,  to  be  able  accurately  to  disprove  the  testimony, 
and  to  trace  its  falsehood  through  all  the  circumstan- 
ces of  knavery  and  credulity  which  produced  it.  He 
knew  that  this  was  commonly  altogether  impossible 
at  any  small  distance  of  time  and  place,  so  it  was  ex- 
tremely dillicult,  even  were  one  present  on  the  spot, 
on  account  of  the  bigotry,  ignorance,  cunning,  and 
roguery  of  a  great  part  of  mankind."  He,  therefore, 
concluded  that  such  evidence  carried  falsehood  on  the 


1  9i^ 


Jo 


MIRACLES. 


very  face  of  it,  and  that  a  miracle,  supported  by  any 
human  testimony,  was  more  properly  a  subject  of  de- 
rision than  argument."  In  this  sentiment  I  most  cor- 
dially concur,  my  decided  opinion  being,  that  the  evi- 
dence of  miracles  is  utterly  mcompetent  to  decide  the 
question.  The  same  distinguished  writer,  when  re- 
ferring to  the  credulity  of  the  ignorant,  very  admira- 
bly remarks,  '-Nothing  convinces  multitudes  so  much, 
as  that  which  they  anmot  comprehend:' 

The  Christian  father,  .St.  Chrysostom,  positively  de- 
cles,  that  "miracles  are  proper  only  to  excite  sluggish 
and  vulgar  minds;  that  men  of  sense   have  no  occa- 
sion   for  them;  and  that  they  frequently  carry  some 
outward   suspicion    along    with    them.''     The    great 
Moshenu,  in  his  Eccles.  History,  speaking  of  the  early 
ages  of  (Christianity,  and  the  nnracles  pretended  to  be 
wrought  111  those  days,  observes,  "The  simplicity  and 
Ignorance  of  the  generality  in  those  times,   furnished 
tfie  most  favorable  occasions  for  the  exercise  of  fraud ; 
and  the  impudence  of  impostors   in   contriving  false 
miracles,  was  artfully  proportioned  to  the  credulity  of 
the  vulgar;  whilst  the  sagacity  of  the  wise,  who  per- 
ceived these  cheats,  were  overawed  into  silence  by  the 
dangers    that  threatened  their   lives  and  fortunes    if 
they  should  expose  the  artitice."     llius,  does  it  gene- 
rally happen  111  human  life,  that  when  danger  attends 
the  discovery  of  truth,  and  tbe  profession  thereof,  the 
prudent  are  silent ;  the  multitude  believe,   and  impos- 
tors triumph.     The  ingenious  and   learned  Christian, 
lir.  iVliddleton,  m   his  famous  "Free  Inquiry,"  when 
quoting  the  authority  of  St.  Cyprian,  as  to  the  frauds 
ot  the  Christians  in  the  third  century,  observes,  as  fol- 
lows :— "  From  all  these  considerations  taken  together. 
It  must,  I  tlnnk,  be  allowed  that  the  forged  miracles  of 
the  loin-th  century,  give  us  just  reason  to  suspect  the 
pretensions  of  every  other  age,   both   before  and  after 
It.        rins  IS  a  most  important  admission  for  a  Chris- 
tian Doctor. 

Miracles,  I  hold,  if  true—if  possible,  not  only  coii- 


MIRACLES. 


137 


chisively  disprove  the  divinity  of  the  Bible,  but  divi- 
nity Itself;  and  therefore,  the  Christians,  in  adducing 
this  kind  of  evidence,  so  far  from  establishing  their 
position,  most  signally  and  incontrovcrtibly  invalidate 
it.  This  may  appear  a  somewhat  strange  averment, 
but  it  is  one  by  no  means  difficult  of  elucidation. — 
'I'hey  declare  that  the  Deity  is  infinite  in  all  his  per- 
fections, and  that  the  laws  of  nature  are  an  ef}l'ct  of 
these  divine  and  infinite  attributes,  and  must,  there- 
fore, have  been  arranged,  at  the  first ^  in  the  l)est  pos- 
sible manner^  and  for  the  best  possible  pnrjtoscs.  INow, 
to  alter  these  laws,  so  ahsolutely  perfect,  (as  the  per- 
formance of  a  miracle  necessarily  implies,)  would  be 
to  make  these  laws  imperfect^  as  no  alteration  could 
take  place  in  that  which  Avas  as  jterfect  as  it  conld  be, 
unless  for  the  worse.  To  work  a  miracle,  therefore, 
could  answer  no  really  good  jnir pose,  and  must,  in  its 
nature,  be  derogatory  to  the  powers  of  the  Cod  by 
whom  it  is  supposed  to  be  performed. 

To  establish  a  system  of  religion  by  evidence  drawn 
from  miracles,  is  to  establish  it  upon  the  ruin  oi  the 
consistent  harmony  of  the  divine  attributes  by  anni- 
hilating his  perfection,  divesting  him  of  that  which 
could  alone  constitute  him  a  God — either  the  Deity 
did  things  at  the  first  as  they  ought  to  be  done,  or  he 
did  not.  If  he  did  them  as  they  ought  to  be  done, 
there  could  be  no  need  of  alteration,  and,  consequent- 
ly, there  coidd  have  been  no  such  thing  as  a  miracle  ; 
but  if  he  did  ?iot,  then  he  must  have  been  either  imper- 
fect or  liave  acted  inconsistenlly  with  good  principle ; 
in  either  of  which  cases  his  character  as  God,  would 
be  destroyed.  It  is  manifest,  that  a  wonder-working 
God,  who  violates  his  own  laws,  and  acts  inconsistent- 
ly with  the  principles  which  he  himself  has  establish- 
ee,  is  no  Cod  at  all,  but  a  puerile,  vacillating  creature, 
possessing  all  the  weaknesses  of  an  ignorant  humani- 
ty, and  none  of  the  perfections  of  an  omniscient 
Divinity. 

"  To  suppose  that  God  can  alter  the  settled  laws  of 


1:^* 


138 


MIRACLES. 


MIRACLES. 


139 


nature  which  he  himself  had  formed  (which  he  must 
d(j  to  perform  a  miracle,)  is  to  suppose,"  says  Palmer, 
"his  will  and  wisdom  mutable,  and  that  they  are  not 
the  heU  laws  of  the  most  perfect  being;  for  if/^eis 
the  author  of  them,  they  must  be  as  immutable  as  he 
is,  so  that  he  cannot  alter  them  to  make  them  better, 
and  laill  not  alter  them  to  make  them  worse.  Neither 
of  those  can  be  agreeable  to  his  attributes.  If  the 
course  of  nature  is  not  the  best,  the  only  best  and  fit- 
test that  could  be,  it  is  not  the  offspring  of  jjerfcct 
wisdom,  nor  was  it  settled  by  divine  will ;  and  if  so, 
God  is  not  the  author  of  nature,  if  the  laws  thereof 
can  be  altered,  for  if  the  laws  of  nature  are  God's 
laws,  he  cannot  alter  them  in  any  degree,  without 
being  in  some  measure  changeable.  If  all  nature  is 
under  the  direction  of  an  immutable  mind,  what  can 
make  a  change  in  that  direction? '' 

God  must  be  allowed  to  be  eternal ;  therefore,  he 
necessarily  exists,  and  is,  necessarily,  wliatever  he  is  : 
therefore,  it  is  not  in  his  own  power  to  change  himself" 
— it  is  his  perfection  to  be  imnmtable.  For  if  his  na- 
ture could  possibly  change,  it  might  err,  for  whosoever 
is  changeable  is  not  perfect. 

Besides,  an  eternal  and  perfect  nature  must  necessa- 
rily be  unchangeable  ;  and  so  long  as  the  first  moving 
cause  is  the  same,  all  subsequent  and  secondary  causes 
can  never  vary.'^ 

Voltaire  observes,  "  For  what  purpose  would  God 
perform  a  miracle  ]  "  To  accomplish  some  particular 
design  upon  living  beings.  He  would  then,  in  reality, 
be  supposed  to  say,— I  have  not  been  able  to  effect  by 
my  construction  of  the  universe — by  my  divine  de- 
crees— by  my  eternal  laws,  a  particular  object ;  I  am 
now  going  to  change  my  eterwd  ideas,  and  immiUable 
laws,  to  endeavor  to  accomplish  what  I  have  not  been 
able  to  do  by  means  of  them. 

"  This  would  be  an  avowal  of  his  weakness,  not  of 
his />o?^7cr;  it  would  appear,  indeed,  in  such  a  being 
an  inconceivable  contradktlun.^^ 


From  this  reasoning,  the  validity  of  which  cannot 
be  controverted,  it  is  obvious  the  orthodox  in  main- 
taining that  miracles  are  an  evidence  of  the  divinity 
of  their  book,  are  (5nly  exploding  their  own  preten- 
sions. The  argument  of  miracles  is  indeed  suicidal. 
I  repeat,  therefore,  miracles  are  not  admissible  as 
proof  of  the  j)()int  at  issue. 

Conceding,  however,  for  the  sake  of  argument,  tliat 
miracles  are  a  proof  of  divine  interposition,  the  ortho- 
dox are  by  no  means  relieved  from  their  embarrass- 
ments— they  are  only  involved  in  still  more  distressing 
difficulties,  as  the  founders  of  all  the  great  religions  m 
tlic  world,  and  their  more  immediate  apostles,  are 
said,  by  their  disciples,  to  have  performed  miracles, 
many  of  which  are  of  an  hifinitcly  more  wonderful 
character  than  any  recorded  either  in  the  Old  or  New 
Testament ;  and  upon  authority  eipially  as  satisfac- 
tory. 

If  miracles  are  a  proof  of  the  divinity  of  one  reli- 
gion, they  are  of  another,  and,  hence,  the  heathen 
religions  are  just  as  likely  to  be  genuine  as  the  Chris- 
tian ;  nay,  more  so,  because  their  miracles  are  much 
more  extraordinary.  The  value  of  a  miracle  is  to  be 
estimated  not  by  its  probability,  but  improbabiUty. — 
The  more  improbable,  tlierefore,  a  miracle  may  be,  the 
better  miracle  it  is,  and  the  more  likely  the  religion  for 
the  advancement  of  which  it  was  performed,  is'divine. 
Of  course,  a  more  astounding  miracle  would  require 
the  administration  of  a  stronger  dose  of  divine  inspir- 
ation ;  and,  therefore,  if  I  can  show  that  the  miracles 
of  the  heathen  are  more  remarkable  than  those  of  the 
Christian, — I  prove  that  they  are  moi^e  dbmie — more 
worthy  the  acceptance  of  miracle-mongers  and  mira- 
cle-believers. 

Permit  me  to  adduce,  in  the  first  place,  a  few  Hin- 
doo miracles.  I  shall  quote  from  a  very  pious  French 
Christian  Missionary,  Abbe  Dubois,  who  lived  among 
the  Hindoos  for  many  years,  and  had  every  opportu- 
nity of  becoming  acquainted  with  their  opinions,  hab- 


no 


MIRACLES. 


Its,  and  superstitions.  He  remarks,  "  The  miracles 
of  the  Christian  rehgion,  however  extraordinary  they 
must  appear  to  a  common  imderstanding,  are 'by  no 
means  so  to  the  Hindoos.  Upon  them  they  have  no 
cllect.  The  exploits  of  Joshua  and  Iiis  army,  and  the 
prodigies  they  elfccted  by  the  interpositions  of  C^od, 
m  the  conquest  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  seem  to  them 
nnirorthy  of  notice,  when  compared  with  the  achieve- 
ments ot  their  own  Kama,  and  of  the  miracles  which 
attended  his  progress  when  iie  subjected  Ceylon  to  his 
yoke.  Tlie  mighty  strength  of  Samson  dwindles  into 
nothing  wlien  opposed  to  the  overwhelming  energy  of 
Bah,  ot  Pvavana,  and  the  giants.  'Hie  resurrection  of 
Lazarus  itself,  is,  in  their  eyes,  an  ordinmy  event,  of 
which  they  scg /rrf/ite?U  examples  in  the  Vishnu  cere- 
monies ot  Pahvahdam.  I  particularize  these  examples 
because  they  liave  been  actually  opposed  to  me  more 
than  once  by  Prahmins  in  my  disputations  with  them 
on  religion." 

From  tliis  extract  it  is  evident  that  the  Christian 
miracle-dealers  must  "hide  their  diminished  heads," 
and  never  more  attempt  to  Christianize  thai  portion  of 
the  globe  until  they  can  manufacture  a  superior  stock 
of  "  divine  wonders." 

We  will  now  mention  the  famous  Grecian  miracle, 
said  to  have  been  performed  by  the  priests  of  Apollo' 
belore  the  temple  of  Delphos.  ' 

Bishop  Warl)urton,  alluding  to  this  memorable  phe- 
nomenon, remarks,  "  The  prediction  of  this  desolation, 
by  the  priests  oi  Apollo,  w^ith  the  faith  due  to  the  best 
human  testimony,  which  strangely  concurred  to  sup- 
port the  fact,  were,  I  presume,  the  reasons  which 
mclmed  the  excellent  Dean  Prideaux,  to  esteem  it 
miraculous:'  He  says,  '^Brennus  went  on  with  his 
army  towards  Delphos,  to  plunder  the  temple;  but  he 
there  met  with  a  wonderful  defeat— -^  terril)le  storm  of 
thunder,  lightning,  and  hail,  destroyed  great  numbers 
of  his  men ;  and,  at  the  same  time,  an  carthciuake, 
rending  the  mountains  asunder,  thre\y  down  v/holo 
rocks  upon  them." 


MIRACLES. 


Ill 


Here  is  a  lieathen  miracle  admitted  to  be  such  by 
Dean  Prideaux.  Bishop  Warburton  himself  confesses 
that  the  testimony  in  favor  of  it,  "  strangely  con- 
curred to  su})port  the  flxct."  The  miracles  of  Mah- 
omet are  the  most  remarkable.  They  are  worthy  of 
of  the  name.  We  are  solemnly  assured  by  IMahomc- 
dans  that  their  prophet  travelled  through  ninety  hea- 
vens in  ONE  ni<rht,  returning  to  Mecca  before  the  next 
morning.  This  surpasses  the  railway  or  any  other 
species  of  "  locomotion."  While  in  the  celestial 
regions,  we  are  told  Mahomet  saw  Cod  Almiglity 
himself,  and  held  with  him  a  friendly  personal  con- 
versation. He  saw  many  other  marvellous  phenom- 
ena. For  instance,  in  tlie  first  heav(3n  he  saw  a  cOck, 
whose  head  was  so  large  that  it  readied  to  the  second 
heaven,  which  was  at  the  distance  of  500  days'  jour- 
ney, according  to  the  common  rule  of  travelling  on 
earth. 

In  aLiother  "  heaven  "  he  beheld  an  angel  so  large 
that  the  distance  between  his  eyes  was  etpial  to  the 
length  of  seventy  thousand  days\journcy  !  !  ! 

hi  one  of  tlie  heavenly  apartments,  he  beheld  a 
clieruh  with  seventy  tliousand  heads ^  and  every  head 
had  seventy  thousand  mouths,  and  in  every  mouth 
there  were  seventy  thousand  voices,  with  which  the 
angel  was  incessantly  praising. 

These  are  ideally  ''miraculous  wonders,"  and,  if  we 
arc  to  accredit  miracles,  that  of  Mahomet's  visit  to 
heaven,  is  something  worthy  of  our  credulity.  Did 
time  permit,  I  could  amuse  you  with  the  details  of  an 
immense  number  of  other  miracles,  from  various  par- 
ties and  religions,  most  of  which  are  much  more  sat- 
isfactorily attested  than  any  of  the  Bible- wonders,  and 
which,  therefore,  we  have  as  much  right  to  believe. 

1  could  tell  you  of  the  Fgyptian  miracles.  I  could 
tell  you  of  the  miracles  wrought  by  the  sorcerers  of 
J^haraoh,  and  the  priests  of  Baal,  as  declared  in  the 
Bible  itself— by  men  who  did  not  teach  the  "true  re- 
ligion.'^     I  could  tell,  too,  of  the  miracles  of  Appolo- 


142 


MIRACLES. 


MIRACLES. 


113 


niiis — the  Roman  miracle,  as  recorded  by  Livy,  the 
celebrated  historian— of  the  miracles  of  Vespasian, 
who,  we  are  told,  cured  a  blind  man,  and  gave  anoth- 
er the  nse  of  his  arm ;  and  who,  in  consequence,  was 
honored  by  many  as  a  god. 

I  could  tell  you  of  the  miracles  said  to  have  been 
performed  by  the  kings  of  England  and  Scotland,  so 
lately  as  the  I'^fth  cenmry,  when  they  professed  to 
cure  the  scrofula  by  the  sign  of  the  cross.  I  could 
tell  you  of  the  thousand  and  one  miracles  said  to  have 
been  performed  by  the  holy  fdthers  during  the  dark 
ages — of  the  "miraculous  performances"  recorded  in 
the  Methodist  magazines,  and  other  superstitious  pub- 
lications—miracles, many  of  which,  says  Wesley 
liimself,  in  his  letter  to  the  Hisliop  of  Gloucester,  are 
beyond  all  suspicion,  as  the  "  witnesses  could  not  bo 
deceived  themselves,  or  deceive  others." 

I  could  tell  you,  also,  of  the  miracles  of  Prince 
llohenlohe,  who  is  said  to  have  cured  thonsands  who 
were  afflicted  with  the  most  desperate  diseases,  by 
sim[)Iy  praying  for  them.  The  miracle  of  the  with- 
ered elm-tree,  mentioned  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Forsyth, 
and  said  to  have  been  attested  by  many  most  respect- 
able "  eye-witnesses." 

Likewise,  1  could  inform  you  of  the  celebrated  mira- 
aelc  performed  upon  the  inhabitants  of  New  England, 
(America,)  when  afflicted  by  demons,  spectres,  and 
other  supernatural  agencies,  narrated  by  Dr.  Cotton 
Mather,  who  declares  the  phenomena  he  there  records 
can  be  attested  by  the  •'  oaths  of  a  multitude  of  re- 
spectable witnesses."  I  could  tell  you  of  these,  and 
other  pious  wonders,  but  shall  be  constrained  to  con- 
tent myself  with  the  two  following: — The  first  is  the 
memorable  miracle  said  to  have  been  performed  dur- 
ing the  Italian  war,  in  1797.  The  French  being 
supposed  to  have  entered  Italy  to  overthrow  Papal 
(.'hristianity,  we  are  informed  that  innnerous  pictures 
ol  the  Virgin  Mary  opened  and  shut  their  eyes  in  dif- 
ferent parts  of  that  country,  during  an  interval  of  six 


or  seven  months,  and  this  was  attested  "by  at  least 
00,000  persons,  who  voluntarily  deposed  that  they  re- 
peatedly beheld  the  prodigy  with  their  own  eyes." 

The  Rev.  editor  of  the  "Official  Memoirs,"  declares 
that  these  miracles  have  more  "moral  certainty  in 
their  favor  than  any  'fact'  whatever  in  the  annals 
of  the  world."  We  are  seriously  told  that  no  less 
than  600,000  people  actually  saw  paintings  of  the 
semi-goddess,  Virgin  Mary — pieces  of  mere  inanimate 
matter,  oil,  paint,  and  canvass — open  and  shut  their 
"eyes,  "  contniually,  during  the  space  of  six  or  seven 
months!  ()!  man,  how  far  will  thy  credulity  lead 
thee?  This  beats  any  miracle  in  the  Bible,  and  is 
incom])arably  better  attested — yet  who  believes  it? 

The  miracles  of  William  Iluntijigdon,  are  the  cream 
of  the  whole.  They  are,  what  I  should  denominate, 
practical  miracles — miracles  founded,  I  should  pre- 
sume, upon  the  doctrine  of  utility. 

Vv  e  are  told  that  when  he  prayed  for  leather  breech- 
es, he  had  them ;  and  when  he  was  hungry,  fishes 
came  out  of  the  watej,  and  larks  from  heaven,  to  feed 
him,  in  abundance.  What  a  pity  we  cannot  have 
such  miracles  now-a-days  !  How  unfortunate  that 
the  impoverished  portion  of  the  community  —  those 
who  are  now  reduced  to  insult  and  starvation,  cannot 
receive  a  sufficient  quantum  of  "divme  grace"  to 
work  such  miraculous  performances  ! 

There  would  be  no  necessity  for  "  the  Queen's  beg- 
ging letters,"  "relief committees,"  "benevolent  socie- 
ties," "  poor-houses,"  or  "charity"  sermons. 

But  let  us  pause  for  a  moment,  to  inquire  what  in- 
ference is  to  bo  deduced  from  these  "facts."  What 
but  this — that  miracles  have  been  said  to  be  wrought 
and  attested  in  favor  of  all  the  great  religions  and  sec- 
tions of  religions  in  the  world,  and  that  each  of  these 
parties  declare  that  their  respective  miracles  prove 
their  respective  tenets  to  be  divine?  Inasmuch,  how- 
ever, as  this  is  impossible — inasmuch,  as  Bishop  Fleet- 
wood says,  "  miracles  are  no  conclusive  proof  of  any 
religion  being  true." 


'   -Jt 


1  14 


MIUACLES. 


)iiiiii;li3; 


115 


Pho  argument  of  miracles,  like  that  of  prophecy, 
proves  too  much  for  the  convenience  of  the  Christiuii. 

it  affords  the  supporters  of  otiicr  rehgions  an  oppor- 
tunity of  ])roving,  upon  the  same  ground,  that  their 
rehgion  is  divine.  The  Christian  pubhc,  therefore, 
must  abandon  the  argument  of  miracles,  or  neutralize 
their  own  position,  cither  of  which  will  establish  the 
point  lor  which  I  am  contending  —  at  least  so  far  as 
this  argument  is  concerned. 

Moore,  in  his  •'  Veiled  Prophet,"  when  alluding  to 
the  anxiety  displayed  by  all  impostors  to  establish 
their  religion  by  miracles,  exclaims — 

"  Yo,  too,  believers  of  Incredible  creeds, 

Whose  faith  enshrines  the  moiisier  which  it  breeds 
Who,  bohler  e'ou  than  Nimroil,   think  to  rise  ' 

B>  non«>v.'S4»  iu'aptvi  on  iion»enM?  ti>  tiii*  skie*; 
^f  Ki^tli  h:ivf  iiiiftirlr^,  wia./ miM  ft»» 


ik*o<i 


-...-...    ..       J  'iiiiif    uiiija    |t»#| 


Ilixnlli-e^i,  However,  llial  tlic  pro<  rocordcd 

in  llie  Ujhic,  are  UilUrr  ntt<:5.fr><l  than  any  otlwr  mira- 
cles. 'Ilic  eviikiin^  ja  more? coainjusive — w> c<iiic?Iusivo 
lliitt  no  raiioiiul  mind  can  nijccl  j(,  I  zi»k^  uhrrc  h 
thi8  ^vKloiiofr?     I  rc'ijezit,  V. '        is  thi:c  cvidcHc. 

I>f»  wo  fiMii  it  in  tho  (>/r/  iV-ManKnt  .^  'I'iic  only 
^•vkIoikx'  in  r^jvor  of  llicrsc  miracles,  ist,  that  cliey  um 
rucunliMl  ill  a  book,  rom|>.i».>tl  hy  tin;  prtcsis  oV  iJic 
iniwt  igiK>fant  and  croilnloiis  jx^iple  in  llio  world. 

Whzii  5i^i.sible  mail  will  rnxx-pl  micIi  ir^tiinony] — 
Arc  wv.  ID  UIm'to  lliot  Ihe  evidence  in  i.ii|,|M>rl  oi*  the 
woikIitAiJ   repnst  of  ihe  n  wiili   Abraham,   ilio 

inarvclltMis  laic  oJ  Joiialrs  Ihi^xj  days'  rc5.idi>iice  in  Ilic 
whale*  |)olly-~tlic  sudden  cmivcrsioii  ol*  ijot'x  wife 
into  a  jMllar  of  «ilt— llic  raininir  o\  Jirc  ami  l>riin»i<»fie 
n|MMi  >oduin  and  c;<  ,:ih— 1|,<,  |)css5iinq;  of  ihe  Ism- 
<?litC8  chronjrJi  iIh!  Jii-a  .'^  ilw^  Ikrtrnlc^n  nchicvo- 
mcnis  ofSiunHiMi— the  Mn|i|»iM.;  iifiijc  sun  byJoolina, 
and  a  nniltiindti  of  oihrr  nioii>4r<«i5  ial)lc»— ^ts  boiler 
atUd.icfl  ilwm  iIkj  nnniertms  Indian,  flniHibJc,  Cireciaii, 
and  Pofiiili  iuira<:Ui5,  uliea  ni^iny  of  lliu  laacr  arccoii! 


firmed  by  the  solemn  alU^'  :i  of  m:u;i.M rales,  di. 
vines,  physicians,  mid  <»tlier  rojH:i!iaMo  per.viikj;?  and, 
if  we  reject  these  miracles,  iliough  confirmed  by  Mich 
evidence,  why  shouUl  wo  receive  llio  Jewish  ii)ira<!lc$. 
which  have  not  a  jKirl><'lo  <yf  cviil4:iic«!  in  their  favor  1 
1  defy  both  Jews  and  ClirisiiaiM  to  cite  any  collalcnd 
testimony.  No  writer  or  hi$turi!Ui,  |jow<!\*«i*  aiK^iciit, 
makes  allusion  to  tlwi  oxtriuirdinary  occurn^icx*  nar- 
rated in  the  Jewi^i  **  13ook  of  V*  ondersc/'  »otii>"  of 
which,  had  they  really  liamicfied,  could  not  liuvc  «- 
caped  the  notice  of  n^^mkinJ.  These  stooriev  arc  only 
mentioned  in  a  book  >^'hich  wa»  uol  heanl  of  iiiilil 
about  300  years  before  Christ ! — a  hxtk  bdoiigiiig  lo 
a  race  of  priests,  i>oturtoti8  for  their  inqwo^turcs,  their 
credulity,  and  their  ii^norzuKx;.  The  citli^hteiMMl  and 
lliinkinig  minds  of  the  niiK:tcenth  cciunrv,  arc  really 
called  n])OJi  to  ackiK>wled^  the  64iipid  i  of  kucIi 

a  1>card  of  imiKislors;,  who  only  iiiveiuer  e  ^*piiiU.s 
frauds'*  to  excite  tlic  fc4ir  and  wonder  of  a  fN}o)4c, 
hiarl:ar<Hi!(.  MiixrhliltouH,  and  illiti'ratc!  hi  iIm!  al>- 
M'ii^3  of  all  collateral  tcstinKMiy,  1  deem  it  univoccv- 
sary  to  (lur^iio  tlio  subject. 

What  of  llw!  jVcfT  TcNlan>ent  miracles  ?     1$  tlfeO  cvi- 
ikiicc  nH>rc  :  ic4ory*J   Not  at  all.    Tlie  Cliri»ti:int(, 

4>f  coiirM.'.  ;iihrin  that  it  m  clear  and  inc<Hitrovcrtil>lc : 
but  fiwro  a.s.Mnnplion  i:t  not  urginnrnc.  It  generally 
liapi  wl>cn  there  is  less  proof)  that  the  aKsc-rier  of 

a  pro|>>  I  is  uioru  doi^inalic.  So  it  is  ni  thi.n  ii>- 
slanco.     U  iih  all  tlic  exultation  of  the  C  aiis,  il 

ts  incontestable  that  llic  evidence  in  Ktip))ort  of  their 
divine  pnxlii^ic^  i.s  entirely  cx-fMirlc.  i  ehalb!nge  tlicm 
to  name  any  coutemjH^rary  aiitlH>rity,  cviiifirmin^  llicir 
MatotiH'iitK  Not  OIK*  ol  tito  linmerofis  wniers  and 
liLsturiaus  of  \\nwAi  tiiiics  can  Ix:  <|iiotcd  in  j;iipj>nrt  of 
tlirir  jNfctensinit'^  .S^irrj.  aiwl  tluj  elder  Tliliy,  tlni 
irreal  natural   \A\  of  that  aqe.   do  not  refer, 

ill  tho  mo«l  reinulc  difi^roc,  to  the  pret<;niatnral  dark- 
ness—the  rkviiiK  of  il«J  Kiiinis  from  their  Jtrsivr*^,  ant] 
tlieir  walking  ihiuugli  the  Mroel^  of  JeiUbali  iii^    iitci»' 


IIG 


MIRACLES. 


tioucd  in  Matt,  xxvii.,  or  any  of  the  wonders  said  to 
have  been  performed  before  thousands  of  spectators. 
Phny  devotes  a  ichole  chapter  to  extraordinary  echp- 
ses,  but  notices  not  this  astonishhjg  phenomenon, 
winch,  had  it  occurred,  must  have  been  Jaiown  to 
liim. 

It  is  to  the  Christian  converts  alone  we  are  indebted 
for  the  only  accounts  we  have  of  such  amazing  pro- 
digies, and  their  isolated  and  unsupported  testimony 
cannot  be  admitted  as  suflicient  to  establish  their  own 
veracity.  Were  this  to  be  allowed  them,  on  the  same 
ground  must  we  admit  the  miracles  of  the  heathen 
lawgivers  and  founders  of  sects,  as  they  were  credited 
by  millions  of  followers,  and  are  so  to  this  day. 

The  only  collateral  evidence  which  Christians  them- 
selves have  ventured  to  adduce,  is  that  of  Josephus 
Pontius  Pilate,  and  Publius  Lentulus,  and  diis  evi- 
dence we  proved,  on  a  former  occasion,  on  the  author- 
ity of  Dr.  Lardner,  Dr.  Du  Pin,  Bishop  Warburton, 
and  other  distinguished  Christians,  was  forged. 

We  know  that  at  the  time  these  miracles  are  said 
to  have  been  accomplished,  the  i)eo])le   wcxq  predis- 
posed to  accredit  them.     All  classes  and  nations,  ex- 
cept a  few  philosophers,  were  believers  in  supernatural 
events.    The  Christian  author  Le  IMoine,  in  his  Essay 
on  Miracles,  is  obliged  to  admit  that  there  "never  was 
a  greater  corruj)tion,  more  fraud  in  point  of  miracles 
and  a  more  general  propensity  to  tamper  with,  or  be- 
lieve anything  of  the  kind,  than  in   the  period   which 
elapsed  Irom  the  death  of  Christ  to  the  destruction  of 
Jerusalem."     The  credulity  of  the  early   Christians 
was  mibounded  ;  so  much  so  indeed,   that  the   Chris- 
tian professor,  Mosheim,  who  is  esteemed  by  the  pious 
as  the  beau  ?V/e«/ of  an  ecclesiastical  hisroiiaii,  deii'onn- 
ccs  them  in  his    Eccles.  Hist.  v.  i.  p.  102,  as  "a  gross 
and  Ignorant  multilude.'' 

Yet,   it  is  upon    the   veracity  of  sucb  a  multitude 
we  have  to  rely  for  the  credibility  of  tlic  New  Testa- 
ment miracles ! 


MIRACLES. 


117 


The  pretensions  of  Christ  to  supernn rural  powers 
were  similar  to  those  of  Minos,  Lyeurgus,  Pythagoras, 
and  other  lawgivers.  They  considered  it  necessary, 
Hi  order  to  secure  obedience  to  tlieir  laws,  and  inspire 
veneration,  to  deceive  the  vulgar.  This  maxim  was 
adoj)ted,  too,  by  the  l^gyptians,  the  Jews,  and  the 
early  fathers  of  the  Christian  church. 

Indeed,  Christ  himself,  as  shown  in  our  third  lec- 
ture, positively  advocated  that  doctrine. 

He  professed  to  teach,  '•'  That  seeing  they  may  see, 
and  not  perceive,  and  hearing  they  may  hear,  and  not 
understand  J '      (Mark  iv.  12.) 

We  must  reiterate  that  it  is  a  fact  as  singular  as  it 
is  fatal  to  the  credibility  of  these  miracles,  that  not 
one  of  them  is  confirmed  by  contem])orary  historians, 
not  even  such  momentous  events  as  the  slaughter  of 
the  children  by  Herod — the  opening  of  the  heavens  at 
the  baptism  of  Jesus — the  beheading  of  John  the  Bap- 
tist, after  he  had  baptized  all  Judea  and  Jerusalem — 
the  purchase  of  the  field  of  blood,  which,  it  is  said, 
was  known  to  all  the  people  of  Jerusak'ni — the  total 
darkness  at  the  crucilixion  of  Jesus  previously  alluded 
to — and  the  wonderful  ])ool  of  Bcthesda  in  Jerusak^m, 
wherein  an  angel  came  to  heal  the  sick. 

Ill  fact,  most  of  the  miracles  of  Christ,  arc  said  to 
have  been  done  in  comparative  secrecy.  His  own 
resurrection  is  admitted  by  Christians  to  be  only  a 
''  private  miracle."'  I  should  say  very  private,  for  no 
one  ever  saw  him  rise  from  the  tomb,  not  even  his 
own  discij)les. 

We  have  not  the  testimony  of  a  single  individual 
upon  this  strange  event,  and  why  a  matter  of  so  much 
importance  was  accomplished  in  so  obscure  a  place, 
and  not  before  as  many  witnesses  as  were  present  at 
his  death,  is  sullicient  to  prove  that  those  things  are 
related  by  men,  who,  instead  of  being  inspired  by 
wisdom,  seem  to  l)e  remarkable  only  for  ignorance  and 
superstition. 

With  res[)C'ct  to  the  ascension,  it  appears  that  Mark 


148 


MIRACLES. 


MIRACLES. 


149 


and  Luke,  who  were  not  disciples  at  the  time,  and 
consc(iueiilly,  not  present,  are  tlie  only  writers  who 
pretend  to  give  an  account  of  the  circumstance,  and 
this,  too.  111  a  very  contra(hctory  manner  ;  while  Mat- 
thew and  John,  who  are  said  lo  liave  heeii  present,  do 
not  make  the  shghtest  aUusion  to  it,  nor  inform  us 
that  it  ever  occurred  !  Tlie  declaration  that  Jesus 
would  rise  from  tlie  dead,  after  three  days,  was  made 
m  puhlic  :  why,  then,  was  the  pretended  performance 
made  in  private  7  The  declaration  was  made  before 
persons  who  required  their  donbts  to  be  removed  ; — 
why,  then,  did  he  only  appear  before  women  and  his 
discij)les,  who  were  ready  to  believe  or  to  assert  any- 
thing tending  to  the  credit  of  their  sect?  The  best 
evidence  of  which  the  nature  of  the  case  would  ad- 
mit, was  his  public  appearance  in  Jerusalem  ; — why 
did  not  this  taki>  place 7  There  is  but  one  answer  to 
be  given — the  whole  story  is  an  imposture,  devoid  of 
all  truth  or  probability. 

When  Christ  was  "transfigured,"  he  takes  with 
h'\m  o/il}/  his  three  faviji  lies  I  ^Vhcn  he  turns  water 
iuto  nine,  he  selects  the  time  when  his  witnesses  were 
^'' tnernj  ! '"'  When  h^  raises  the  daughter  of  Jalriis^ 
he  puts  away  all  ?ier  friends  from  witnessing  the  re- 
suscitating })rocess.  When  he  cure-i  the  hUnd  niait^ 
he  takes  him  aside  [roni  public  obscrvatio/i.  A\  hen  he 
cleanses  the  leper,  he  "  straightly  charged  him,  see 
thou  say  nothlni^  to  any  man^  but  show  thyself  to  the 
PKiKST  !  "  (Mark  i.,  44  ;)  an  expression  which  indicates 
Christ's  wish  to  conceal  his  trick  from  the  people — a 
practice  aways  observed  by  impostors.  J>cn  the 
very  corner  stone  of  the  divinity  of  Christ,  his  "mi- 
raculous conception,"  rests  entirely  upon  the  assertion 
of  Mary,  who  declares  that  she  had  been  told  by  an 
"angel,"  that  she  was  with  child  by  a  ghost  I — a 
"  holy  ghost,"  and  of  Josepli,  who,  also  allirms  that 
an  "angel"  had  told  him  so  in  a  drkam  !  A  queer 
dream,  truly — perhaps  a  mesmeric  trance!  How 
laughable,   that  the  whole  ground- work  of  th('  divi- 


nity  of  Christianity  depends  upon  a  dream — a  thing, 
upon  which  all  intelligent  persons,  in  any  other  case, 
place  no  reliance  !  Sensible  people,  even  amongst 
Christians,  in  this  age,  esteem  a  person  as  imbecile 
who  regards  dreams,  and  yet  the  wliole  of  the  Chris- 
tian world  place  such  faith  in  them,  as  actually  to 
found  their  religious  belief  upon  them  !  What  glori- 
ous consistency  and  rationality  !  !  I  am  quite  persuaded 
had  Joseph  and  Mary  lived  in  our  day,  and  produced 
such  evidence  before  any  court  in  Europe,  the  sitting 
magistrate  would  have  ordered  them,  in  pure  com- 
miseration, to  have  been  "taken  care  of."  In  legal 
parlance,  they  would  have  been  pronounced  non 
compos  mentis. 

My  friends,  it  is  worthy  of  observation,  that  amongst 
the  numerous  inventions  of  piiests  to  dii])e  mankind, 
one  of  the  clearest  was  the  miraculous  conceptions 
and  births  of  antiquity.  They  have  been  found  ex- 
tremely useful  to  priests  m  all  ages,  ])arti^ularly  when 
celibacy  was  the  order  of  the  day  among  them,  and 
vestals  were  kept  in  the  temples.  These  fables,  palm- 
ed upon  the  ignorant,  were  convenient  means  of  con- 
cealing all  sacerdotal  seductions  and  amours,  by 
means  of  which  "Sons  of  (lod"  were  "begotten." 
AVhen  the  fruits  of  these  holy  indulgencies  could  no 
longer  be  conceak^d,  there  was  always  at  hand  some 
good  natured,  accommodating  god,  willing  to  take 
upon  himself  the  "  fraternity ;  "  the  lady,  of  course, 
remaining  in  spotless  virghiity.  The  institution  of 
the  virgin  votaries  of  Yesta,  could  not  have  been  en- 
tirely unconnected  with  the  private  devotions  of  the 
])riests,  since  these  ladies  were  allowed  to  retire  from 
the  temples  at  the  age  of  thirty.  By  such  divine  tricks 
the  llindo  virgin,  llohini,  conceived  and  brought  forth 
a  "Son  of  God,"  one  of  the  Brahmin  Trinity.  The 
Chinese  had  a  virgin  impregnated  with  the  ray  of  the 
sun — the  mother  of  the  ( Jod,  Foe.  The  mother  of  So- 
monocodum,  wlio,  according  to  the  Scri])tures  of  the 
Talapians  of  Siam.  was  the  God  expected  to  save  the 

13=^ 


150 


MIRACLES. 


universe,  was  likewise  a  ''virgin."  The  followers  of 
Leatzc  declare  that  his  mother  hccame  pregnant  by  a 
junction-of  heaven  and  earth,  and  was  pregnant  with 
him  for  eighty  years  !  llie  followers  of  i^lato,  even 
two  hundred  and  fifty  years  after  his  death,  and  only 
100  before  Christ,  said  tliat  he  was  born  of  a  "  virgin." 
His  father,  Aristo,  on  his  marriage,  was  warned  in  a 
dream,  by  Apollo,  not  to  have  commerce  with  his 
wife,  because  she  was  with  child  by  him,  (Apollo.) 
Aristo,  like  Joseph,  obeyed,  and  Plato  was  added  to 
the  "Sons  of  God."  8uch  are  the  delusions  of  im- 
posture and  superstition  !  Tlie  story  of  Christ's  con- 
ception, is  ecpially  as  preposterous  as  that  of  Plato's. 
II  you  believe  one,  yon  mjiy  believe  the  other. 

It  is  a  Ycry  stfs/Hnoffs  fact,  my  friends,  that  Christ's 
nnmftumhj  (tud  rchirmis—those  who  knew  him  most 
nilimulehj,  lon;L(esf^  and  heat,  gave  W)  credit  to  his  pre- 
tensions to  nnraculous  power,  .as  seen  in  Mark  vi., 
ver.  1,  2,  .5;  and  .lohn  iv.,  ver.  41.  It  is  a  ciuious 
fact,  too,  that  he  refused  to  work  his  miracles  t>ef(,rc 
men  of  sense  and  intelU ^^ence,  always  preferring, 
when  he  did  come  before  the  public,  to  perform  them 
in  the  presence  of  the  ignorant  and  creduhms  mul- 
titude. 

But  there  appears  to  have  been  a  singular  con- 
trariety of  opinions  among  the  early  Chnstians,  in 
respect  to  many  matters  involving  the  miraculous 
character  of  Christ.  His  own  .lewish  converts  re- 
garded him  as  a  mere  man,  while  some  of  his 
heathen  followers,  according  to  the  Kev.  Mr.  Jones, 
"  Canen,"  p.  12,  believed  him  to  be  "a  certain  pow- 
er, sixty-six  miles  high,  and   twenty-four   broad so 

tall,  that  his  head  reached  the  cto/uls  !  "  Another  very 
prevalent  opinion  at  this  primitive  period,  says  Mo- 
sheim,  vol.  1,  p.  130,  was,  that  Christ  had  existed 
only  in  appearance,  and  not  in  reality.  J)r.  Priest- 
ley states,  in  his  Church  History,  vol.'  1,  p.  97,  that 
this  was  the  opinion  of  "all  persons  who  pretended 
to  philosophy,  or  more  knowledge   than   the  vulgar, 


MIRACLES. 


151 


and  continued  down  to  the  period  of  the  establish- 
ment of  Popery."  The  Christian  apostle  f^arnabas, 
in  his  gospel,  translated  by  Archbishop  Wake,  in  his 
"Apostolic  Fathers,''  expressly  asserts  that  Jesus 
was  not  crucified,  but  that  Judas  was  crucified  in 
his  stead.  Bassillides,  another  primitive  teacher  of 
Christianity,  declares  that  it  was  neiflier  Christ  nor 
Judas  who  was  crucified,  but  Symon  of  Siren e ! 
The  Ebonites,  saj^s  Dr.  Hug,  in  his  Introduction  to  th« 
New  Testament,  (a  numerous  body  of  early  Christians) 
"denied  the  miraculous  conception  of  Christ,  and  with 
the  Nazarencs,  looked  upon  liim  onlt/  as  an  ordinary 
man.'''  They  also  denied  that  he  suffered  on  the  cro.ss. 
and  asserted  that  he  had  Jloivn  away  to  heaven  !  !  an 
achievement  certainly  more  worthy  of  a  "God,"  than 
that  of  allowing  himself  to  be  murdered  between  two 
felons. 

Before  I  retire,  I  cannot  deny  myself  the  pleasure 
of  quoting  some  passages  from  the  celebrated  dis- 
courses of  Woolston,  on  miracles.  Those  who  would 
wish  to  be  amused  for  a  few  hours,  would  do  well 
to  read  these  admirable  predilections. 

Alluding  to  the  story  of  Christ  telling  the  woman 
of  Samaria  that  she  had  five  hundreds,  &x!.,  he  re- 
marks : — "'Christ  here  makes  himself  a  wandering 
gipsy,  or  Bohemian  fortune-teller,  and  1  much  won- 
der that  our  gipsies  don't  account  themselves  the 
genuine  disciples  of  Jesus,  being  endowed  with  the 
like  gifts,  and  exercising  no  worse  arts  than  he  him- 
self practised."  He  compares  Jesus  when  tempted 
by  the  devil,  to  St.  Hunstan,  who  seized  the  devil  by 
the  nose,  and  he  gives  the  preference  to  tlie  Saint, 
for  instead  of  parleying  with  him,  he  remarks,  "  If 
Jesus  had  taken  him  by  the  collar,  and  thrust  him 
into  his  dungeon,  and  there  chained  him,  and  closed 
hell's  gates  upon  him,  I  appeal  to  lionest  Christians 
whether  such  a  Herculean  labor  would  not  have 
pleased  them  well?" 

In  the  story  of  the  fig-tree,   he  remarks,    "Jesus 


152 


MIRACLES. 


conducted  himself  like  a  mendicant  friar  on  that  oc- 
casion, who,  before  he  turned  ficld-preacher,  was  no 
better  than  a  journeyman  carpenter."  "It  is,"  says 
he,  '"  very  surprising  that  the  court  of  Rome  has  not, 
among  all  its  relics,  some  little  fancy  box,  or  three- 
foot-stool,  of  his  workmanship." 

On  the  story  of  the  conversion  of  vmfer  into  wine, 
he  has  some  very  facetious  comments.  He  observes, 
*'Jolni  expressly  says  that  the  guests  were  already 
intoxicated,  '  methutosc,^  and  God  comes  down  to 
earth,  and  performs  his  first  miracle,  to  enable  them 
to  drink  still  more  !  Whether  Jesus  and  his  mother 
were  as  excited,  as  were  others  of  the  company,  is  not 
certain.  The  famiharity  of  the  lady  with  a  soldier 
imphes  she  was  fond  of  her  bottle,  and  her  son  was 
somewhat  affected  by  the  wine  from  his  answering 
his  mother  so  waspishly  and  snappishly  as  he  did, 
when  he  said,  '  Woman,  what  have  I  to  do  with 
thee  7'  It  may  be  inferred  from  these  words  that 
Mary  was  not  a  virgin,  and  that  Jesus  was  not  her 
son.  Had  it  been  otherwise,  he  would  not  thus  have 
insulted  his  father  and  mother,  in  violation  of  one 
of  the  most  sacred  commandments  of  the  law."  He 
concludes,  "  however,  he  (Christ)  complied  with  liis 
mother's  request;  he  fills  eighteen  jars  with  water, 
and  makes  punch  of  it."  The  story  of  the  resiUTCc- 
tion  of  Lazarus  he  treats  with  ineifable  derision,  and 
denounces  as  "so  brimful  of  absurdity,  that  St.  John 
when  he  wrote  it  must  have  outlived  his  senses  !  " 

Woolston  directs  especial  attention  to  the  dead  said 
to  be  raised  again  by  Christ.  He  contends,  and  very 
justly,  that  "  a  dead  man  restored  to  life  would  have 
been  an  object  of  attention  and  astonishment  to  the 
universe ;  that  all  the  Jewish  magistrates,  and  more 
especially  Pilate,  would  have  made  the  most  minute 
investigation,  and  obtained  the  most  authentic  depo- 
sitions;  that  Tiberius  enjoined  all  pro-consuls  and 
governors  to  inform  him,  with  exactness,  of  every 
event  that  took  place.     But  so  far  from  these  wonders 


MIRACLES. 


153 


being  mentioned,  the  world  knew  nothing  about  them 
till  more  than  100  years  had  rolled  away  from  the 
date  of  the  events,  when  some  obscure  individuals 
show  one  another  the  writings  rccordhig  them.  Nei- 
ther Josephus,  nor  the  learned  Philo,  nor  any  Creek 
or  Roman  historian,  at  all  notices  these  prodigies, 
which,  had  they  really  occurred,  must  have  held  all 
nations  in  amazement !  " 

Hume  says — "  A  miracle  is  a  violation  of  the  laws 
of  nature;  and  as  a  firm  and  unalterable  experience 
has  established  these  laws,  the  proof  against  a  mira- 
cle, from  the  very  nature  of  the  fact,  is  as  entire  as 
any  argument  from  experience  can  possibly  be  im- 
agined. Why  is  It  more  than  probable  that  all  men 
must  die;  that  lead  cannot,  of  itself,  remain  suspend- 
ed in  the  air;  that  fire  consumes  wood,  and  is  extin- 
guished by  water;  unless  it  be  that  these  events  are 
found  agreeable  to  the  laws  of  nature,  and  there  is 
required  a  violation  of  these  laws,  or,  in  other  words, 
a  miracle  to  prevent  them  7  Nothing  is  esteemed  a 
miracle,  if  it  ever  happen  in  the  common  course  of 
nature.  It  is  no  miracle  that  a  man,  seemingly  in 
good  health,  should  die  on  a  sudden;  because  such  a 
kind  of  death,  though  more  unusual  than  any  other, 
has  yet  been  frequently  observed  to  happen.  But  it 
is  a  miracle  that  a  dead  man  should  come  to  life; 
because  that  has  never  been  observed  in  any  age  or 
country.  There  must,  therefore,  be  an  uniform  ex- 
perience against  every  miraculous  event,  otherwise 
the  event  would  not  merit  that  appellation.  And  as 
an  uniform  experience  amounts  to  a  proof,  there  is 
here  a  direct  and  full  proof,  from  the  nature  of  the 
fact,  aj?ainst  the  existence  of  any  miracle;  nor  can 
such  a  proof  be  destroyed,  or  the  miracle  rendered 
credible,  but  bv  an  opposite  proof  which  is  superior. 
The  plain  consequence  is  (and  it  is  a  general  maxim 
worthy  of  our  attention,)  '  That  no  testimony  is  suf- 
ficient to  establish  a  miracle,  unless  the  testimony  be 
of  such  a  kind   that  its  falsehood  would  be  more  mi- 


I 


154 


MIRACLES. 


raculoiis  than  the  fact  which  it  endeavors  to  establish. 
And  even  in  that  case  there  is  a  mutual  destruction 
of  arguments,  and  the  superior  only  gives  us  an  as- 
surance suitable  to  that  degree  of  force  wiiich  remains 
after  deducting  the  inferior.  When  any  one  tells  me 
that  he  saw  a  dead  man  restored  to  life,  I  immediate- 
ly consider  with  myself  whether  it  be  more  probable 
that  this  person  should  either  deceive  or  be  deceived, 
or  that  the  fact  which  he  relates  should  really  have 
happened.  I  weigh  the  one  miracle  agafnst  the  other; 
and  according  to  the  superiority  which  I  discover,  I 
pronounce  my  decision,  and  always  reject  the  greater 
miracle.  If  the  falsehood  of  his  testimony  would  be 
more  miraculous  than  the  event  which  he  relates; 
then,  and  not  till  then,  can  he  pretend  to  command 
my  belief  or  opinion." 

But   enough  of  these    pious   monstrosities — these 
"  wonders," 

"  Too  heavenly  to  be  understood. '^ 

The  day  is  approaching  when  they  will  be  read  as 
we  now  peruse  Swift's  (iulliver's  Travels.  The  ma- 
tured and  enlightened  mind  has  outgrown  them  — 
aspires  after  the  real — the  practical — the  rational. — 
Tlie  spirit  of  the  age  is  pre-eminently  scientific,  and 
once  let  the  glorious  huninary  of  science  shed  its 
rays  placidly  and  freely  upon  mankind,  and  the 
mysteries,  delusions,  and  impostures  of  the  world 
will  melt  away — 

''^  Like  the  baseless  fabric  of  a  vision." 


LECTURE  NINTH. 


THE  CONSISTENCY  OF  THE  BIBLE. 


Friends — 

I  AGAIN  appear  before  yon  to  resume  our  important, 
and,  I  trust,  not  altogether  uninteresting  inquiry,  into 
the  divinity  of  the  Christian  Scriptures.  On  this  oc- 
casion we  propose  to  consider  more  of  the  details  of 
the  subject  than  it  was  our  province  to  do  in  our 
previous  address. 

We  shall  proceed  to  inquire  into  the  consistency  of 
the  Bible.  I  hold  that  any  book  emanating  from  an 
omniscient  Deity  must,  of  necessity,  be  perfectly  con- 
sistent in  itself  in  every  possible  particular. 

To  siq)pose  such  a  production  as  containing  dis- 
crepancies and  incongruities,  is  virtually  to  admit 
that  it  is  liable  to  error,  and,  therefore,  cannot  be 
our  inspired,  and  certainly  not  our  infallible  guide 
to  salvation. 

To  imagine,  for  a  moment,  that  a  revelation ^from 
omniscience  could  contain  contradictions,  is  itself  a 
conti^adiction.  If,  then,  I  can  show  the  Bible  con- 
tains inconsistencies,  I  prove,  beyond  the  possibility 
of  refutation,  that  it  cannot  130  divine.  It  will  be  a 
proof,  as  Dr.  Wardlow  remarks,  in  his  Discourses, 
"  sufficiently  convincing  that  the  Bible  is  not  from 
God."  Presuming,  therefore,  that  all  my  previous 
reasonings  were  invalid^  if  I  succeed  in  tJds  argu- 
ment, I  irrefragably  establish  my  position — that  the 
Bible  is  ail  imposture. 


156 


THE    CONSISTENCY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


Professor  Campbell,  in  his  Preface  to  the  Transla- 
tion of  the  Gospels,  confesses,  that,  "  If  anything 
were  affirmed  that  is  self-contradictory,  or  anything 
enjoined  that  is  immoral,  we  have  sufficient  internal 
evidence  that  such  thing  cannot  proceed  from  the 
Father  of  light,  which  all  the  external  proofs  that 
could  be  produced  on  the  other  side,  would  never  be 
able  to  surmount." 

The  Rev.  S.  Home,  in  his  Introduction  to  the 
Scriptures,  2d  edit.  vol.  i.  p.  581,  also  observes,  ''If 
real  contradictions  exist  in  the  Bible,  it  is  sufficient 
proof  that  it  is  not  divinely  inspired,  whatever  pre- 
tences it  may  make  to  such  inspiration." 

I  unhesitatingly  aver,  my  friends,  that  there  is  no 
book  extant — no  produclion,  ancient  or  modern,  more 
replete  with  contradictions — contradictions,  naked, 
palpable,  and  absolute,  than  the  book  under  discus- 
sion. It  is  one  tissue  of  incongruity  from  Genesis  to 
Revelations.  Had  its  alleged  authors  wrote  solely 
to  contradict  themselves,  they  could  not  have  been 
more  successful. 

Considered  as  a  book  of  contradictions,  the  Bible 
is  a  most  admirable  and  masterly  performance.  It 
is,  indeed,  unrivalled  in  this  respect. 

Looking  at  the  Scriptures,  either  in  a  doctrinal  or 
historical  point  of  view,  instances  of  the  grossest  in- 
congruity present  themselves  in  almost  qyqty  chapter 
— if  not  in  every  verse. 

The  fact  is,  anything  may  be  proved  from  this 
"book  of  riddles,"  good,  bad,  or  indilferent.  It  is, 
emphatically,  "  all  things  to  all  men''  It  is  one  of 
the  most  cameleon-Uke  productions  ever  composed. 
Its  color  varies,  just  according  to  the  chapter  you  are 
perusing.  Were  it  possible  to  read  two  verses  only 
irom  this  book  to  any  two  individuals  who  had  never 
heard  of  the  Bible  before,  I  could  pledge  my  reputa- 
tion they  would  at  once  declare  tliey  could  not  have 
been  taken  from  the  same  composition. 

Certain  I  am  that,  in  the  whole  course  of  my  read- 


1 


t 


THK    CONSISTENCY    OF    THE    BlBf.E. 


157 


J 


-ing,  I  never  met  with  a  work  more  self -contradictory^ 
or  more  unworthy  of  being  taken  as  an  authority  or 
standard. 

It  must  be  admitted,  I  presume,  that  any  book 
which  is  to  be  esteemed  an  authority,  and  especially 
a  divine  authority,  ought,  at  least,  to  possess  the  at- 
tribute of  con^ruity.  Destitute  of  that  excellence,  no 
honest  or  consistent  man  can  esteem  it  a  satisfactory 
reference.  Now  the  Bible  does  not  jwssess  that  at- 
tribute. It  is  so  utterly  devoid  of  it,  indeed,  that 
to  talk  of  the  Bible  and  consistency  appears  to  me 
to  be  as  paradoxical  and  absurd  as  to  talk  of  George 
the  Fourth  and  morality,  or  of  Bishop  Philpot  and 
charity. 

This,  I  doubt  not,  may  be  pronounced  an  unqual- 
ified and  sweeping  declaration.  I  iutcnd  it  to  be  so. 
I  wish  it  to  be  as  unqualified  as  language  will  admit, 
as  I  am  assured  I  am  only  affirming  that  which  I 
can  incontrovertibly  substantiate.  I>y  your  permis- 
sion, we  will  proceed  to  this  demonstration  at  once, 
and  waive  any  further  prefatory  comment,  except  it 
be  to  promise  that  I  shall  give  chapter  and  verse  for 
every  quotation  or  reference  I  make  on  this  occasion, 
and  I  distinctly  challenge  any  person  to  show  that  I 
have  cited  unfairly. 

I  may  observe,  that  though  I  have  an  hour  allowed 
me  to  treat  this  subject,  I  have  matter  in  my  posses- 
sion, the  delivery  of  which,  would  take  me  from  now 
until  midnight.  This  discourse,  therefore,  will  neces- 
sarily contain  only  a  portion  of  that  which  I  could 
adduce  did  time  permit.  Nevertheless,  I  shall  en- 
deavor to  introduce  as  much  as  possible,  looking  to 
condensation  rather  than  amplification. 

We  shall  consider  the  Bible,  in  the  first  instance, 
more  in  a  doctrinal  than  historical  sense,  and  com- 
mence by  showing  the  incongruous  doctrines  it  in- 
culcates as  to  the  nature  of  Deity. 

In  John,  c.  iv.,  v.  24,  we  are  told,  '-^God  is  a  spirit^'' 
immaterial^  while  in  Exodus,  c.  xxxiii.,  v.  22,  23,  we 

14 


158 


•the  consistency  of  the  bible. 


are  told,  he  exhibited  to  Moses  a  portion  of  his  body, 
which  shows,  if  that  passage  is  correct,  he  is  some- 
thing more  than  a  spirit.  I  refrain  from  reading  the 
passage.  It  is  too  obscene  for  any  respectable  audi- 
tory. Jn  Prov.,  c.  XV.,  v.  3,  he  is  represented  as  hav- 
ing eyes.  In  Isaiah,  c.  Iv.,  v.  11,  a  month;  c.  Ixv., 
V.  5,  a  nose;  c.  xxx.,  v.  27,  lips.  2  Kings,  c.  xix.,  v. 
16,  ears.  Ezekiel,  c.  xliii.,  v.  7,  feet.  Jeremiah,  c. 
xxi.,  V.  5,  arms.  Psalms,  viii.,  v.  3,  fingers.  Eze- 
kiel, c.  i.,  V.  27,  loins.  Genesis,  c.  vi.,  v.  6,  a  heart. 
Numbers,  c.  xxv.,  v.  16,  a  voice.  Genesis,  c.  ii.,  v.  7, 
lungs.  Exodus,  c.  xv.,  v.  8,  nostrils.  Jeremiah,  c. 
iv.,  V.  19,  bowels.  Isaiah,  c.  Ixix.,  v.  17,  a  head. 
Daniel,  c.  vii.,  v.  0,  hair.  Exodus,  c.  xxxiii.,  v.  11, 
a  face.  Isaiah,  c.  xxx.,  v.  27,  a  tongue.  Acts,  c.  ii., 
V.  28,  bhjod.  And  in  John,  c.  iii.,  v.  16,  organs  of 
generation. 

In  Ephesians,  c.  iv.,  v.  6,  we  are  informed, .  God 
is  omnipresent^  everywhere.  "  He  is  above  you  all, 
tJirough  you  all,  and  in  you  all."  But  in  Habak- 
kuk,  c.  iii.,  v.  3,  it  is  said.  ''God  came  from  Tcman," 
which  implies  that  he  had  come  to  a  place  where  he 
previously  icas  not.  Now  if  he  was  everywhere^  he 
would  have  no  occasion  to  come  from  Teman,  as  he 
must  have  been  at  the  place  already.  For  similar 
passages,   see   Exodus,  c.   xix.,   v.   20.     Numbers,   c. 


XL,  V.  2.5 ; 


c.  xii.  V.  5.  Isaiah,  c.  Ixvi.,  v.  18.  Ex- 
od.,  c.  xxiv.,  V.  12.  Genesis,  c.  xvii.,  v.  22.  Luke, 
c.  iii.,  V.  22,  and  a  multitude  of  others. 

In  Matthew,  c.  xix.,  v.  26,  we  are  made  acquaint- 
ed with  the  doctrine  of  God's  omnipotence.  "  With 
God  all  things  are  possible :  "  and  yet  we  are  told,  in 
Judges,  c.  i.,  V.  19,  that  he  "  could  not  drive  out  the 
inhabitants  of  the  valley,  because  they  had  chariots 
of  iron." 

For  parallel  passages,  see  1  Corin.,  c.  i.,  v.  25  ; 
Exod.,  c.  xxxiv..  v.  14;  and  Gen.,  c.  xxxii.,  v.  21-30. 

In  Acts,  c.  i..  V.  24,  we  arc  told,  God  is  omniscient^ 
all-wise;  '-he  knoweth  the  hearts  of  all  men:"  yet 


the  consistency  of  the  bible. 


159 


we  read  in  the  1  Corin.,  c.  i.,  v.  25,  of  the  ^^ foolish- 
ne'^s  of  God ;  '  and  in  Malachi,  c.  iii.,  v.  16,  that  he 
i!L  obliged  to  keep  "a  book  of  remembrance.^^ 

For  other  passages,  proving  his  finite  knowledge, 
see  Gen.,  c.  iii.,  v.  9,  11,  Num.,  c.  xxii.,  v.  9;  2 
Chron.,  c.  xviii.,  v.  19 ;  and  Prov..  c.  xxvi.,  v.  10. 

In  the  1st  of  John,  c.  iv.,  v.  2,  it  is  said,  "God  is 
love,"  while  in  Dent.,  c.  iv.,  v.  24,  it  is  stated,  he  is 
"a  consuming  fire."  If  so,  I  am  afraid  his  love  will 
be  of  rather  too  warm  a  nature;  but,  in  Exod.,  c.  xv., 
Y.  3,  we  are  told,  "  he  is  a  man  of  war ;  "  and  in 
Nahum,  c.  i.,  v.  22,  he  is  "/?/Ho?/5."  In  Hosea,  c. 
xiii.,  V.  16,  he  is  represented  as  displaying  his  "love" 
in  the  following  manner  : — "  Samaria  shall  become 
desolate,  for  she  hath  rebelled  against  her  God ;  they 
shall  fall  by  the  sword — their  infants  shall  be  dashed 
to  pieces,  and  their  women  with  child  shall  be  ript 
up."  I  could  supply  you  with  a  thousand  passages 
of  a  like  barbarous  nature,  but  I  forbear.  I  advise 
you  to  read  Exodus,  c.  xxxii.,  v.  27,  28  ;  Deut.,  c. 
xxxii.,  V.  22-26;  1  Sarp.,  c.  xv.,  v.  3 ;  2  Kings,  c.  xvii., 
V.  26;  Jer.,  c.  xi.,  v.  11 ;  and  Ezek.,  c.  v.,  v.  10,  11. 

In  Romans,  c.  ii.,  v.  11,  we  learn  that  God  is  " /m- 
partia^'  has  "no  respect  of  persons,"  notwithstand- 
ing in  the  very  same  book,  c.  ix.,  v.  13,  we  are  as- 
sured that  God  loved  Jacob,  but  hated  Esau  ;  and  in 
1  Sam.,  c.  ii.,  v.  7,  that  he  was  so  very  "  impartial  " 
as  to  make  some  rich^  and  others  poor.  For  passages 
of  a  similar  nature,  see  2  Tim.,  c.  ii.,  v.  16  ;  Deut., 
c.  vii.  V.  6;  1  Kings,  c.  iii.,  v.  12;  Daniel,  c.  i.,  v.  9. 

In  Malachi,  c.  iii.,  v.  6,  we  are  told  God  is  immuta- 
ble. "For  I  am  the  Lord,  I  change  not?^  In  Num., 
c.  xxiii.,  V.  19,  we  are  informed  tTiat  "God  is  not  a 
man  that  he  should  lie,  neither  the  son  of  man  that 
he  should  repent  ;'^  yet  in  Exod.,  c.  xxxii.,  v.  14,  I 
read,  "And  the  Lord  repented  of  the  evil  which  he 
had  thought  to  do  unto  his  people." 

And  in  Jer.,  c.  xv.,  v.  6,  he  exclaims,  "I  am  weary 
with  repenting.'^ 


160 


THE    CONSISTENCY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


Other  passages,  equally  ineompatible  with  the  doc- 


trine of  iTm/matabilUxj ^  will  be  ioiiiid  in  (»en.,  c 
7 :  1  Sam.  c.  xv.,  v 

V.  8,  and  10. 


VI.,   V. 

11 ;  2  Sam.,  c.  xxiv.,  v.  16;  Jer., 


c.  xvni. 


We  now  come  to  his  incrmiprehensibUity^  of  which 


we  read   in  Colos. 


and  Isaiah,    c.   Iv., 


c. 

V. 


1.,     V. 


,,  ,.  15;  Rom.,  c.  xi.,  v.  33, 
8.  In  Colossians  it  calls  him 
the  invisible  (iod ;  and  still,  in  Exod.,  c.  xxiv.,  v.  9, 
and  10,  it  states,  that  the  seventy  elders  of  Israel 
^'saw  the  God  of  Israeli  Amos,  c.  ix.,  v.  1,  of  his 
book,  declares,  •'  I  saw  the  Lord  standing  upon  the 
altar."  In  Exod.,  c.  xxxiii.  v.  11,  we  are  informed 
that  Moses  saw  the  Lord  "face  to  face;  "and  we 
read  of  several  pious  impostors  who  pretend  to  have 
enjoyed  a  similar  "  honor."  Sec  Gen.,  c.  xxxii.,  v. 
30;  c.  xxvi.,  V.  2;  also,  Dent.,  c.  xxxi.,  v.  15. 

We  will  now  speak  of  the  dogmas  of  Trinity  and 
Unify.  In  the  1st  John,  c.  v.,  v.  7,  we  read,  *' For 
there  arc  three  that  bear  record  in  heaven,  —  the 
Eather.  the  Word,  and  the  Holy  (ihost."  While  wo 
discover,  in  1  ^I'im.^  c.  ii.,  v.  5,  that  "  there  is  one 
<«od,  and  one  Mediator  between  God  and  man  —  the 
tmin,  Christ  Jesns;  "  and  in  Isaiah,  c.  xlvi.,  v.  0,  the 
Lord  is  represented  as  saying,  distinctly,  "1  am  God, 
and  there  is  none  else."  The  Trinitarians  ([uote  the 
first  of  these  extracts;  the  Unitarians,  the  two  last. — 
Hoth  sects,  however,  pretend  to  cite  ruimerous  other 
passages  in  favor  of  their  respective  dogmas.  The  fa- 
mous Trinitarian  Pastel,  as  given  by  l)r.  .lortin,  vol. 
iii.,  p.  lOil,  declares,  that  there  are  11,000  proofs  in 
favor  of  the  Trinity,  in  the  Old  Testament  alone, 
when  inl(Mprcted  rightly ;  that  is,  ctymologico-inys- 
tico-cahfdistindlyy  The  Unitarians,  as  stated  by 
Lindsey,  affirm  that  there  are  more  than  "  two  thou- 
sand texts  in  the  Old.  and  one  thousand  in  the  NeiL\ 
supporting  Unitarianism ; "  thus  demonstrating,  that 
upon  this  pointy  alone,  there  are  thousands  of  incon- 
gruities in  the  Sc^riptures. 

I  shall  refer  you  to  a  few  more  passages  in  reference 


THE    CONSISTENCY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


161 


to  the  person  of  a  Deity.  In  Isaiah,  c.  xL,  y.  11,  he  is 
said  to  be  like  a  shepherd;  in  Lament.,  c.  iii.,  v.  10, 
he  is  compared  to  a  bear.  In  Isaiah,  c.  xlii.,  v.  13,  to 
a  ni}<rhty  man.  In  Psalms,  Ixxviii.,  v.  65,  and  66,  a 
sleepy  man.  In  Uosea,  c.  v.,  v.  12,  he  is  compared  to 
a  moth ;  in  c.  xiii.,  v.  7,  to  a  leopard. 

We  find,  that  in  Gen.,  c.  ii.,  v.  8,  he  is  declared  to 
be  a  gardener ;  in  Gen.,  c.  iii.,  v.  21,  a  tailor  ;  Gen., 
c.  xxix.,  V.  31,  a  midwife.  Exod.,  c.  i.,  v.  21,  iihouse- 
bnildcr.  Joel,  c.  iii.,  v.  8,  a  slave  dealer.  1  Corin.,  c. 
i.,  V.  25,  a  fool.  Isaiah,  c.  xxxiv.,  v.  6,  a  butcher. 
Isaiah,  c.  liv.,  v.  13,  a  schoolnvu^ter.  Dent.,  c.  xxxiv., 
V.  6,  a  sexton.  Exod.,  xxxii.,  v.  16,  a  stoneimtson. 
ICzek.,  c.  xvi.,  v.  10,  a  shoemaker.  Isaiah,  c.  Ixiv.,  v. 
8,  a  potter.  Jer.,  c.  xxx.,  v.  17,  a  doctor.  Isaiah,  c. 
vii.,  V.  20,  a  barber.  Acts,  c.  x.,  v.  15,  a  cook ;  and 
Ex.  c.  xxxi.,  V.  6—8,  a  candkstick  maker.  It  is  said, 
again,  in  Psalms,  cxlv.,  v.  8,  that  he  is  ''slow  to  an- 
ger," while  in  1  Sam.,  c.  vi.,  v.  19,  we  are  informed, 
lie  slew  50,070  persons,  all  in  an  instant,  in  a  fit  of 
rage.  In  Psalms,  xxx.,  v.  5,  we  are  assured,  that  his 
anger  endureth  but  for  a  moment,  while  in  INumb.,  c. 
xxxii.,  V.  13,  he  made  the  Israelites  wander  in  the 
wilderness,  forty  years — a  rather  long  moment,  I  ap- 
prehend. In  jMicah,  c.  7,  v.  18,  we  are  informed  that 
he  "dolightcth  in  mercy,"  and  yet  in  Dent.,  c.  vii.,  v. 
2  and  1(>,  we  are  instructed  '•  neither  to  show  mercy 
nor  pity."  In  James,  c.  i.,  ver.  13,  v/c  are  told,  that 
(n^d  cannot  be  tempted,  "  neither  temi)teth  he  any 
man  ;"  and  yet  in  Gen.,  c.  xxii.,  v.  1,  we  read  that 
*'  God  did  tempt  Abraham  ;"  and  in  Matt.,  c.  vi.,  v.  13, 
we  are  taught  to  cry  out  in  our  prayers,  "and  lead  us 
not  into  temptation."  In  Micah,  c.  viL,  v.  18,  (iod 
"pardoneth  iniquity."  In  Nahum,  c.  i.,  v.  3,  "he 
will  n^)t  at  all  acquit  the  wicked." 

In  2  Peter,  c.  iii..  v.  9,  (iod  is  "not  willing  \h^i any 
should  perish,"  and  still  in  Prov.,  c.  xvi.,  v.  1,  he  made 
the  wicked  in  order  that  they  might  p^.rish.  "The 
liord  hath  made  all  things  for  himself,  yea,  even  the 
wlrkcdfor  the  djiy  of  evil.  "  14* 


1G2 


TJIE    CONSISTENCY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


In  Prov.,  c.  xii.,  v.  22,  it  is  said,  ''  Lying  lips  are 
an  abomination  to  the  Lord;  "  and  yet  in  I  Kings,  c. 
xxii.,  V.  23,  we  are  actnally  told  that  "  the  1  K>rd  hatli 
pnt  a  li/ing  spirit  in  the  mouths  of  ail  these  thy 
prophets." 

John,  c.  i.,  V.  3.,  when  speaking  of  (iod,  says,  ''All 
things  were  made  by  him,"  but  Solomon,  in  his  ''  wis- 
dom,'^ c.  i.,  V.  13,  intimates  that  "God  made  not 
death:"  and  Paul,  in  his  1st  Lpistie  to(  orin.,  c.  xiv., 
V.  33,  avers  that  '*  God  is  not  tiie  author  of  con- 
fusion." 

fn  Prov.,  c.  xvi.,  v.  3,  we  read  that  the  eyes  of  the 
liord  are  "in  every  place.'^ 

In  (ien.,  c.  iii.,  v.  9,  God  could  not  find  Adam  in 
Paradise,  and  had  to  ask,  ''where  art  thou  T'  In 
Isl  KiiMpc,  c.  yiii.,  v.  12,  wc  arc  iiif<inn«Mj  that  llic 
l-i>nl  rlwelleUi  iu  '' ifwk  darhicsjt ;''  but  Vxxwl  m  his 
l8l  Kpisi.  'J'iiii.^  c.  vj.,  V.  Ifi.  Kiys.  iJiat  no  one  e^ni 
AppnxirJi  him  uii  acxMMim  of  his  "i-rcvit  hghl." 

I  have  iKM!U|iir<l  .sMlhcieiu  ofyoiir  linR*  with  iiicon- 
gniiifces  cxinnccti^l  Willi  /A-vVy;  I  will  new  r-minK'rat« 
A  f<iw  in  rchiliuci  co  his  iSV/;i.  In  Malt.  c.  v.,  v.  28, 
Chrihi  8ay«,  "  \MiofttK*ver  .sliull  say,  tlmn  JiaA,  sX\ti\\  U' 
in  <laiigcrof  hell  fire;"  and  yei,  in  iilrtnlcu||y  |J|<. 
Biuno  gospel,  c.  xxiii.,  v.  17—111,  he  cxcl;iintos  '*  Yo 
foiib  anti  hiinij.  •  In  John,  c.  iiL,  v.  15,  Im;  say^,  •'  Wlnv 
aofvcr  hfttrih  hiK  hroilier,  is  a  ntNifttrrr  ;  "  ami  Ktill  no 
arc  Colli  by  Hw?  .s.i»ixr  p4;rM^ii:u,i\  Uiko,  c  xiv.,  v.  2li, 
tluil  wv  ranimt  Ui  hi»  di.>-  i|>le^,  nnU^ss  wc  '•  halo**  <Hir 
"  iKTriJiix^i/ '  .iiiil  not  only  onr  brctlnvii,  l^it  imr  •*  wivc«> 
ohiUlrrfi,  ixir«?nts,  nay,  <Mir  own  life  al.-^o ;  •'  gloiioits 
eiwnnsicjicy !  httmttm  pliil«)«4>j)liy  !  In  Man.,  e.  xxvi., 
V.  .V4,  ji  1%  stali^^  *'  TJu?ii  >aid  Jr;fus  iiiiio  \\wm,  piil 
up  :4jnin  ihy  KW<ml  into  his  phure,  for  nil  ihey  that 
lake  \\¥i  sword,  sliall  [Mjrisli  with  the  «w«>rd/ ' 

In  Liik<%  c,  xxii.,  v.  :»»  it  «txiie«,  "'llicn  said  he, 

(CJirwt,)  iiiito  llirm,  hnt  i>our  Im  ilmt  hath  a  jwirsc  let 

hiin  lake  il,  ni>d  1  so  hi.s  scrip,  and  he  that  Inilh 

IH>  Hword,  let  him  stU  hint  i^finnuU  andhtty  owe.'* 

In  Luke,  c.  xii.,  v.  1,  iho  following  language  is  a|. 


Tilt:  coNsisnwcY  or  thk  ui«*e. 


10)3 


I 


tiihutod  to  Christ,  "Ami  1  say  nnto  ymi,  my  friends, 
be  not  afraid  of  them  thai  kill  ihe  ln-^dv,  niid  aflor  lliat 
have  no  more  that  tlioy  <!au  <lo:"  and  still,  in  Joliil, 
c.  X.,  V.  39,  we  read,  ♦*  TherelWo,  llu-y  v>o\.\)^\\X  agniu 
to  take  him,  (( lirist,)  Utt  he  rvtwyh-i/  ffUt  of  /heir 
hands:'  And  c.  vii.,  T.  1,  '•  And  afkT  lh<-*e  thiir^'8 
.Icsus  walked  in  GaliltM?,  for  he  wmdd  iwrt  walk  in 
Jewry,  because  the  Ji^ws  stwirhl  to  hiit  hsM.'  In  Jolin, 
c.  X.,  V.  30,  he  says,  "  1  and  niv  falhi-T  arc  <i«c."  In 
c.  xiv.,  V.  28,  he  say^  **My  fallwr  b  grcaU-r  than  I.*' 

He  observes  again,  in  Mail.,  c.  v.,  v.  31>,  **  But  I 
say  unto  you,  that  yn  rtsiid  tt*>f  rrd,  but  whowcvcr 
shall  smite  thee  on  ihy  ri|;hl  •  ^  iNt-N  to  him  the 
other  also.''    In  liukc,  c.  xvii.,  v,  I.  lie  i  it  is 

impossible  but  tluit  o<lWicx?5  will  conio,  but  rroc  unto 
hiui  llironjjh  whuni  lUey  conic.*'  Wc  are  loUl  in  John, 
c.  iii.,  V.  l7,  that  "ii«l  .wiil  nol  his  Sm  into  llfcC 
world  to  etfiidcmn  \]\io.  world.  Uit  ibal  the  woritl 
through  htm  nntjjht  l)o  &;ivcd ; "  and  vol  ChriM  him- 
self divlar  :,  '  i'hink  not  ihal  1  come  In  .send  ]H?aoo 
oil  earlli.  I  c<imo  noi  to  send  |)eaoe,  Ixit  a  su^Mdy 
A  straiiso  m«^lo  of  saviiitr  tin?  worlil,  truly  ?  »^nr  inc 
fri^n\  si»4!li   •  Wfvi/;ii«/'— ^-savc  me  from  my  frionds/' 

Having  dcvcloixxl  a  few,  ami  ikiIv  a  few,  of  the  in- 
fionsisteiicios  in  tlic  eharactet  of  CmkI  and  f 'lirial,  con- 
lained  in  tlii.s  '^infallible'-  and  '•  iiibiiircd ;'  v<ilnme,  I 
|)nr|»o!i>L%  i>rior  to  rnieriiit!  into  the  hisrori'  i^irt,  to 
p  lint  oiil  a  few  iiiemicrrniUcat  ill  it!>  il  .     is  and 

I  H!triii<»*t,  ^ 

\V4!  will  begin  with  the  Tun  (Viminaiwlinonte,  Lx- 

<xlu«.  c.  x\*.,  V.  1 — 17. 

'rii<!»3  law^coinpriM!  tlii>  fd/h  if  ib<^  nnvral  doctrines 
of  the  Jews.  Tlic  firsl  ccuninaiwlmmt  sayis  v.  3, 
••  Tlion  shall  have  wo  n/A/r  f fW-jf  i^fort^  Mr;  and  yet 
f^od  d«»clart%  in  the  s^uik*  l¥>«>k,  Kx^kI.,  c  rii>  v.  1,  "  / 
Aifro  tfifhlr.  thtc  *x  (ityif  to  l*hani'd('^  .\iid  ui  <  ii.» 
e.  i,  V.  '2t*i.  we  Tea<l,  '*  I  h?1  us  luako  nuui  in  o«tr  im»g« ;  '^ 
iiujplying,  thai  there  mnsl  Im»  a  ptioafifi/  of  Ciods. 

In  the  sooond  coinnsaiwlincnt,   ilic  Ibraelilcs  wcro 


1 


\ 


IGl 


THE    CONSISTENCY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


Strictly  enjoined  not  to  make  any  ''graven  images,  or 
any  likeness  of  anything  that  is  in  heaven  ahove^  or 
that  is  in  the  earth  heneatli^  or  in  the  water  under  the 
carthP 

Singularly  enongh,  they  are  told  by  God,  only  a 
chapter  or  two  afterwards,  (c.  xxv..  v.  18,)  to  make 
two  "chernhims  of  gold'' — to  make  a  likeness  of  one 
of  the  celestial  animals — something  that  is  in  the 
''  heavens  above  !  " 

The  same  commandment  informs  ns,  ''  T,  the  Lord 
tliy  (iod,  am  a  jealons  God,  visiting  the  ini([nities  of 
the  fatlier  npon  the  children,  nnto  the  third  and  fonrth 
generation  of  them  that  hate  me." 

Hnt  we  read  in  Ilzek.,  c.  xviii.,  v.  20,  that  "the  son 
shall  not  bear  the  iniqnity  of  the  father,  neither  shall 
the  father  bear  the  ini([nity  of  the  son." 

The  third  injunction  states,  v.  7,  that  "  the  Iiord 
will  not  hold  him  guiltless,  that  taketh  his  name  in 
vain  ;  "  and  yet  in  \ahnni,  c.  i.,  v.  o,  we  are  told,  that 
the  fiOrd  "  pardoni^h  iniipiity."  And  Jer.,  c.  xxxi., 
V.  :>1,  says,    that   he    "  will   romcniber   their  sins  no 


more. 


The  fonrlh  comninndment  insists  that  tlie  Sabbath 
day  shonld  be  kept  "holy."  We  must  do  no  mttnner 
of  work  ;  but  Ghrist  himself  dennn-rod  to  tliat  doc- 
trine, in  Mark,  c.  iii.,  v.  5.  lie  held  that  it  was  hiw- 
ftil  to  do  what  work  we  conceived  good,  on  the  Sab- 
bath (lav. 

\\\  Matt.,  c.  xii.,  v.  5,  he  remarks,  in  justification  of 
this,  ''  Now  have  ye  not  read  in  the  law,  how  tliat  on 
the  Sab!)ath  days,  the  priests  of  the  temple  profane  the 
Sabbath,  and  are  blamdca.^  ?  " 

The  fifth  law,  v.  12,  commands  us  to  *' honor  thy 
father  and  thy  mother;  "  while  wc  are  told  byGlirist, 
in  Luke,  c.  xiv.,  v.  26,  that  if  we  -'Iiatc  not  onr  father 
and  our  mother"  we  "cannot  be  ///.f  disciples.^' 

In  the  sixth,  it  is  said,  "  Tlion  shalt  not  kill;" 
while  ill  Kxod.,  c.  xxxii.,  v.  2",  of  the  very  same 
book,  we  arc  told  to  "put  every  man  his  sword   by 


THE    CONSISTENCY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


165 


his  side,  and  go  in  and  ont  from  gate  to  gate,  and  slay 
every  man  his  brother,  and  every  man  his  companion, 
and  every  man  his  neighbor." 

Hut  in  2  Kings,  c.  x.,  v.  PO,  tlic  ••  T^ord"  actually 
declares  that  murder  is  ''ri,^ht''  and  reward:^  .lehii 
for  committing  it.  "  His  children,"  says  he,  "  to  the 
third  and  fonrth   generation  shall  sit  on   the  throne  of 

Israel." 

The  seventh  law  states,  "  Thou  shalt  not  commit 
adulfery/'  Bnt,  in  Isaiah,  c.  xiii.,  v.  16,  the  Lord  says  of 
the  Babylonians,  that  "  their  children  shall  be  dashed 
to  pieces  bclore  their  eyes,  their  houses  shall  be  spoiled, 
and  their  wives  ravished/'  There  are  many  other 
passages,  bnt  they  arc  too   obscene   and   revolting  to 

quote. 

I  could  cite  one  instance  in  particular,  mentioned 
in  Matt.,  c.  i.,  v.  IS,  but  I  presume  it  is  blas>phemy, 
even  to  allude  to  it. 

The  eighth  law  declares,  "Thou  shalt  not  .<?/c«/."--- 
But  the  Lord  commands  tlic  Israelites,  in  Lxod.,  c.  iii. 
V.  22,  to  "spoil  the  Egyptians,"  to  rob  tliem  of  their 
"  jewels  of  gold,  silver,  and  raiment."*  Strange  mo- 
rality, this  !  Consistent  book— infallible  and  immacu- 
late oracle  of  truth  and  goodness  ! 

We  will  now  brietly  refer  to  the  doctrine  o(  hmnor- 
lalitij.  Christians  pretend  to  quote  many  jiassages  in 
favor  of  this  dogma,  such  as,  John,  c.  v.,  v.  28,  and 
29:  John.  c.  xx.,  v.  11—16;  v.  21—27;  c.  xxi.,  v. 
12— 11 ;  Acts,  c.  i.,  v.  0—11 ;  and  Matt.  c.  xxvii.,v.  52. 

The  last  apostle  tells  us  that  "the  graves  were 
opened  and  many  bodies  of  saints  which  slept  arose:' 
INow,  it  is  said,  in  Job,  c.  vii.,  v.  9,  "  As  the  cloud  is 
consumed  and  vanisheth  away,  so  he  that  gocth  down 
to  the  irrnve  shall  conte  up  no  more!  "  In  Ixcles.,  c. 
Iii  V.  19-22,  "Tor  that  wh^ch  befalleth  the  sons  of 
man  befalleth  beasts,  even  one  thing  befalleth  them. 
As  one  dieth,  so  dicth  the  other;  yea,  they  have  all 
one  breath,  so  that  man  hath  no  pre-eminence  over  a 
beast.     Ml  go  t^nto  one  place,  all  are  of  the  dust,  and 


\l 


# 


IGG 


THE    CONSISTENCY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


all  turn  to  dust  again.'''  A  pretty  prospect  this  for 
tlie  soiil-nioiigers  !  In  Psalms,  however,  cxlvi.,  v.  4, 
it  distinctly  says,  that  man's  "breath  goeth  forth,  he 
returnetli  to  the  earth;  in  that  very  day  his  thoughts 
2)erishy 

In  reference  to  the  duration  of  the  world^  we  find 
very  opposite  doctrhies  promulgated.  Eccles.,  c.  i., 
V.  4,  says,  tliat  "  one  generation  passeth  away,  and 
another  generation  cometh,  but  the  earth  abidelli  for- 
ever." But  Matt.,  c.  xiii.,  v.  49,  talks  of  the  "end 
of  the  world,"  and  about  the  angels  comnig  fortli,  &c. 
And  letter,  in  his  second  Epistle,  c.  iii.,  v.  10,  states, 
that  "  the  earth  also  and  the  works  that  are  therein 
shall  be  Ijunit  up  !  " 

In  Romans,  c.  iii.,  v.  2S,  it  is  said,  "  a  man  is  justi- 
fied by  faith^  without  the  deeds  of  the  law."  But, 
in  James,  c.  ii.,  v.  24,  it  is  remarked,  "  Ye  see,  then, 
how  that  by  works  a  man  is  justified,  and  not  by 
faith  only.''  In  Kphos.,  c.  ii.,  v.  8,  it  says,  "  For  by 
grace  are  ye  saved,  through  faith."'  But  it  is  allirm- 
ed  in  James,  c.  xi.,  v.  20,  "that  faith  ivithont  works 
is  dcad.'^  Respecting  the  ^abhath^  we  are  told  in 
Exod.,  c.  XX.,  V.  10,  that  it  is  the  seventh  day  in  the 
week  ;  while  in  John,  c.  xx.,  v.  1,  we  are  told  it  is 
ihii  first  day.     Which  are  we  to  believe? 

The  following  exhibits  a  few  other  glaring  discre- 
pancies, hj  Micha,  c.  iv.,  v.  3,  we  read  that  "  tliey 
shall  beat  their  swords  into  ploughshares,  and  their 
spears  into  pruning  hooks,  nation  shall  not  lift  up  a 
sword  against  nation,  neither  shall  they  learn  war 
any  more.^^  And  yet  we  are  ordered  to  do  diainetri- 
cally  the  reverse  of  this  in  Joel,  c.  iii.,  v.  U),  "Beat 
your  ploughshares  into  sicords^  and  your  pruning 
hooks  into  spears,  let  the  weak  say  I  am  strong." 
In  1  Tim.,  c.  ii.,  v.  4,  we  are  assured  that  the  I^ord 
is  solicitous  that  all  should  "come  unto  the  know- 
ledge of  the  truth.''  But,  in  2  'i'lies.,  c.  ii.,  v.  11,  it 
is  said,  "CJod  should  send  them  strong  delusion  that 
tliey  should   believe  a  //c  /  "      In   Prov.,  c.    iv.,  v.  Z, 


THE    consistency    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


1G7 


we  are  advised  to  "get  wisdom"  and-  "get  under- 
standing; "  and  yet  we  are  assured  in  Eccles.,  c.  i., 
V.  18,  that  "in  much  wisdom  is  much  grief  and  he 
that  increaseth  knowledge  increaseth  sorrow.^^ 

In  Matt.,  c.  X.,  v.  10,  Christ  says,  "  Be  ye  wise  as 
serpents;"  and  still  in  1  Corin.,  c.  i.,  v.  19,  we  are 
told  that  the  liord  "  will  destroy  the  wisdom  of  the 
wise."  In  Psalms,  c.  xcii.,  v.  12,  we  read,  "the  right- 
eous s\m\\  flourish  like  the  palm  tree."  But  in  Isaiah, 
c.  Ivii.,  V.  1,  it  is  stated,  that  the  "righteous  perish- 
eth.^^  In  Romans,  c.  iii.,  v.  10,  it  is  affirmed,  that 
"  There  is  none  righteous — no,  not  one." 

But  we  are  told  in  Gen.,  c.  vi.,  v.  9,  that  Noali  was 
a  "righteous  man,"  and  in  the  Epistle  of  James,  c. 
v..  V.  16,  it  says,  "  The  prayers  of  a  righteous  man 
availeth  much."  Why  should  James  make  such  an 
observation,  if  there  were  no  righteous  men  1  "  Pray 
withoiU  eeasing,^^  says  Paul,  1  Thess.,  c.  v.,  v.  17. 

But  if  we  do,  says  the  Lord  in  Isaiah,  c.  i.,  v.  15, 
"I  will  not  hear."  John  observes,  c.  iii.,  v.  13,  "A^o 
man  hath  ascended  up  into  heaven."  But  in  2  Kings, 
c.  ii.,  V.  11,  we  learn  that  Elijah  "ascended  up  into 
heaven  "  by  a  "  whirlwind  I  " 

"  No  man  liath  seen  (lod  at  any  tinie^^^  says  John, 
c.  i.,  V.  18;  yet  in  Exod.,  c.  xxxiii.,  v.  11,  v/e  arc 
told  Moses  saw  him  "  face  to  face ;  "  and  in  c.  xxiv., 
v.  9-11.  that  the  seventy  ciders  of  Israel,  saw  bun 
and  dined  with  him. 

In  Exod.,  c.  xxxiii.,  v.  20,  we  are  assured  that  no 
man  shall  see  the  Lord  "and  /ite;"  and  yet  we  are 
informed  in   Clen.,  c.    xxxii.,    v.   30,   that   Jacob  saw 

was 


the   Lord,    and  fouglit   with   him    and    his  liib 
''^  preserved.^  ^ 

Further  'inconsistencies  will  be  found  in  the  fol- 
lowing references.  In  Gen.,  c.  i.,  v.  1,  it  states  that 
hccrjen  was  created  on  tbe  first  day,  while  in  v.  G-S, 
it  says  it  was  created  on  tbe  second.  In  («en.,  c.  i., 
V.  27,  it  is  said,  God  created  man  in  his  own  image. 
But  in   Psalms,  c.  Ixxxix.,  v.  G,   it  is  asked,  "Who  is 


1G8 


THE    CONSISTENCY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


like  tlie  liord?"  In  Ocn.,  c.  i  ,  v.  28,  God  blesses 
tliosc  who  lire  fruitful  and  inulliphj.  In  liuke,  c. 
xxiii.,  V.  29,  the  harrcn^  not  the  fruitful^  arc  blessed. 
In  Gen.,  c.  i.,  v.  31,  it  says,  ''All  that  God  created 
was  good.^''  Yet  in  Isa.,  c.  xlv.,  v.  7,  the  Lord  says, 
''' I  create  evil.''  In  Gen,,  c.  ii.,  v.  8,  we  are  told, 
it  is  ?wl  good  for  man  to  be  alo?ic,  while  in  1  Corin., 
c.  vii.,  V.  1,  we  read  that  it  is  '-good  not  to  tmich  a 
woninu.''  In  (^en.,  c.  iii.,  v.  0,  it  is  said  the  woman 
saw  before  she  ate  of  the  frnir,  while  in  the  very  next 
verse  it  says,  her  eyes  were  opened  after  catins^.  In 
(Jen.,  c.  iv.,  v.  1"),  Cain  was  marked  that  lie  shonld 
not  be  killed,  while  in  c.  ix.,  v.  0,  it  says  the  "blood 
shedder''  mnst  ''die,''  In  Gen.,  c.  iv.,  v.  10,  we  are 
told  Cain  went  Ironi  the  presence  of  the  Lord,  while 
in  Rsahns,  exxxix.,  v.  7,  wo  are  told  we  cannot  go 
from  his  presence.  In  Clen.,  c.  vi.,  v.  o-7^  we  are 
intbrnied  the  earth  was  to  be  destroyed  because  it  was 

m 

evil,  while  in  c.  viii.,  v.  21,  it  is  stated  that  was  the 
very  reason  it  was  7iot  to  be  destroyed,  and  in  Gen., 
c.  viii.,  V.  22,  we  read,  ''Seed  thne  and  harvest  shall 
never  cease,'"'  while  in  c.  xlv.,  v.  0,  it  is  said,  the 
earth  should  be  fire  years  without  either  '' eating  or 
harrest!''  hi  (ien.,  c.  x.,  v.  5,  we  are  told  each 
man  was  divided  alter  his  tongue,  while  in  the  very 
next  chapter,  v.  11,  we  are  intbrnied  that  the  whole 
earth  was  one  tongue.  In  Kxod.,  c.  iv.,  v.  2i,  it 
states,  that  God  hardened  Pharaoh's  heart,  but  in  c. 
viii.,  V.  1.5,  we  read  that  Pharaoh  hardened  his  otrn 
heart.  In  Exod.,  c.  xxv.,  v.  8,  God  says,  "Make 
nio  a  sancturay  to  dwell  in."  Yet,'  in  Acts,  c.  vii., 
V.  4Sj  wo  arc  told  God  dwelleth  not  in  temples  made 
with  hands,  hi  Dent.,  c.  xii.,  v.  20,  it  says,  "  Hat 
llesh  whenever  thy  soul  lustcth."  And  yet  in  l;om. 
c.  xiv.,  V.  21,  we  are  warned  that  it  is  7iot  good  to 
eat  llesh.  In  2  8am.,  c,  vi.,  v.  23,  it  says,  Miclial,  the 
daughter  of  Saul,  had  /io  children ;  bnt  inc.  xxi.,  v. 
8,  of  the  satne  bool:^  it  states  she  had  five  !  I  !  In  2 
J^lani.,  c.  xxiv.,  v.  1,  it  states   that  God  moved  David 


THE    CONSISTENCY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


IGO 


to  immber  Israel :  and  yet  in  1  Chron.,  c  xxi.,  v.  1, 
that  Satan  provoked  him  to  number  them.  Perhaps, 
God  aijd  the  Devil  were  one  and  the  same  in  those 
days.  In  2  Sam.,  c.  ii.,  v.  1-5,  we  read  that  David 
went  to  Hebron,  and  was  made  king  of  Judah  only, 
while  in  1  Chron.,  c.  xi.,  v.  1-3,  it  says,  he  went  to 
Hebron,  and  was  made  king  over  (dl  Israel.  In 
Matt.,  c.  v.,  V.  39,  we  are  commanded  to  "-  Resist  not 
evil ;  "  but  in  James,  c.  iv.,  v.  7,  it  bids  us  to  "  resist 
the  Devil;"  but,  perhaps,  the  Devil  is  not  an  evil — 
certainly  not  the  jmrsons^ — for  \(  he  was  to  make  his 
exit,  their  "occupation  would  be  gone."  In  Gen.,  c. 
iv.,  v.  1*3-14,  we  are  told  that  when  the  I^rd  cmsed 
Cain,  and  sent  him  as  a  vagabond  through  the  earth, 
Cain  said  that  every  one  who  found  him  woidd  slay 
him.  Now,  who  could  ''every  one"  be,  when,  ac- 
cording to  the  Hiblc,  there  was  no  one  then  in  exist- 
ence, Abel  being  murdered,  but  his  own  father  and 
mother?  In  v.  16,  17,  it  says  Cain  went  to  the  land 
of  Nod,  and  got  a  wife.  Where  did  he  get  her? 
There  was  no  female  then  in  existence  but  Eve— his 
own  mother.  The  same  verse,  17,  says  that  Cain 
built  a  city.  Hut,  who  was  to  inhabit  it,  pray  ] 
There  wiiva  only  him.self  and  his  wife,  and  his  in- 
fant son  I'inoeh  living — a  very  numerous  population 
to  require  a  city  for  their  home !  1  hope  they  had 
room  cnoui'h.  lint  did  Cain  build  the  citv  himself? 
That  he  could  not  do.  Where  then  did  he  find  the 
workmen  ?  Such  are  the  discrepancies  and  coiUra- 
dictions  which  crowd  this  infallible  book.  A  })retty 
production  to  be  called  God's  word!  I  do  not  know 
whether  (iod  is  ashamed  to  own  it,  but  I  should  be. 

The  historical  incongruities  arc  singularly  glaring 
and  manifold.  So  multitudinous  are  they,  indeed, 
that  they  would  fill  a  volume  of  themselves.  I  must 
confine  my  animadversions  to  the  New  Testament^ 
and  to  one  portion  only — the  Gospels.  These  books 
record  the  Pedigree,  Miraculous  (conception.  Birth, 
Career,  Crucifixion,   Resurrection,   and  Ascension  of 

15 


170 


THi:    CONSISTENCY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


Christ.  They  alFord  one  of  llic  most  extraordinary 
instances  of  incongruous  and  contradictory  history 
extant  T.e(Mcrc,  in  his  Sant.,  \).  285,  might  well 
observe,  that  "theologians  have  labored  more  than 
lOlMI  years  to  reconcile  them,  bill  icithoiit  success.''^ 

Hishop  Marsh,  too,  a  most  learned  l^nglish  divine 
and  professor,  confesses,  in  his  celebrated  lectures, 
that  after  all  his  attempts  to  reconcile  the  contradic- 
tion of  St.  John's  account  of  the  resurrection  with 
that  of  Mark  and  Luke,  he  has  not  been  able  to  do 
it  in  a  manner  satisfactory  either  to  himself,  or  to  any 
impartial  in(pnrcr  into  truth  !  No  less  than  200  har- 
monies or  attempts  to  reconcile  the  gospels  are  al- 
ready in  print. 

In  respect  to  the  pedigree  or  genealogy  of  Christ — 
in  the  first  place,  Luke's  account  is  quite  inconsistent 
with  Mattliew's,  as  well  as  \vith  the  f  )ld  Testament. 
Matthew  says,  c.  i.,  v.  17,  that  from  Abraham  to 
David  are  fourteen  generations,  but  according  to  ]ds 
men  list  of  names  there  can  be  only  thirteen.  He 
also  affirms  that  from  David  to  the  captivity  were 
fourteen  generations,  but  according  to  tlie  pedigree,  in 
the  Old  Testament,  I  Chron.,  c.  v.,  v.  10  to  15,  there 
were  eighteen.  Total  number  of  generations  from 
Abraham  to  Christ,  he  estimates  at  forty-two,  while 
his  own  list  gives  only  forty  !  A  pretty  calculator, 
truly  !  not  consistent  with  himself,  much  less  with 
other  inspired  historians.  Luke's  genealogy,  c.  iii.,  v. 
23  to  38,  records  forty-three  generations,  and  strange 
to  say,  these  infallible  men,  Matthew  and  Luke,  only 
aijrce  in  two  names  out  of  the  forty-three,  viz.,  David 
and  Joseph — and  even  in  relation  to  the  progenitor  of 
Joseph  they  do  not  agree.  Luke  says,  v.  23,  he  was 
the  son  of  Heli,  but  Matthew  says,  v.  16,  he  was  the 
son  of  Jacob. 

One  of  these  infallible  gentlemen  must  have  made 
a  mistake.  If  jVlatthew  spoke  the  truth,  Luke  must 
have  spoken  a  falsehood,  and  vice  versa.  Falsehood, 
then,  in   the  case,  there   must  be — nay,  it  is   a   false- 


TIIE    CONSISTENCY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


171 


1 


I 


hood  altogether,  if  we  are  to  believe  Matthew,  c.  i.,  v. 
lb.  Ihese  evangehcal  historians  quote  these  gene- 
alogies to  prove  that  Jesus  is  of  the  taniilv  of  David 
VVe  trace  the  pedigree  of  Joseph  up  to  'David,  and 
mier  that  Christ  being  the  son  of  Joseph,  lie  descend- 
ed Iroin  the  man  after  God's  own  heart.  Now  in 
the  verse  just  referred  to,  we  are  told  that  C^hrist  was 
not  the  son  of  Joseph— but  the  son  of  a  ghost !  VViuit 
a  blunder  !  \\  hat  accurate  genealogists  f  These  gen- 
tlemen should  have  given  ns  the  pedigree  of  tlie  wily 
ghost  not  that  of  simple  Joseph.  Wiiat  a  pity  it  is  the 
world  has  not  been  siq)})Iicd  with  such  a  cmioisiiy  ! 

Let  us  speak  of  the  mlracidoKs  coitccptlou  ;  and  mi- 
raculous, indeed,  it  is!  Matthew  says,  c.  i.,  v.  20 
tlie  angel  appeared  unto  Joseph,  in  a  dream,  and  told 
liiin^ol  his  good  fortune— but  Luke  says,  c.  i.,  v.  30 
to  'X)^  the  angel  did  not  appear  unto  the  old  Gentle- 
man, but  unto  ]\hiry  herself  Which  story  is  correct? 
1  am  alraid  it  is  all  a  dream,  and  a  very  stupid  one 
too ! 

In  the  account  of  the  birth  of  Christ  there  are  many 
contradictory  statements.  Matthew  tells  us,  c.  ii.,  v. 
1,  that  on  his  nativity  in  Ikthlchem,  there  came  wise 
men  ol  the  east  to  worship  him ;  while  Luke  states, 
c.  ii.,  V.  S,  that  it  was  only  a  number  of  ignorant 
shepherds  who  came,  and  who,  instead  of  coming 
from  the  east,  only  came  from  the  immediate  neigh- 
borhood. Matthew  observes,  c.  ii.,  v.  2,  that  these 
strangers  were  directed  to  liethlehem  by  a  star  • 
Luke,  however,  states,  c.  ii.,  v.  9  that  it  was  an 
angel  who  led  them. 

I  have  alfirmed  that  the  career  of  Christ,  from  his 
birth  to  his  death,  is  given  by  these  inspired  men 
very  inconsistently.  I  will  give  you  a  {cw  cases  :— 
First,  of  the  story  of  Joseph  escaping  with  Christ  and 
his  mother  to  Egypt,  immediately  after  his  birth,  to 
avoid  Herod's  persecution,  Matthew  is  the  only  one 
who  mentions  this  very  important  event,  c.  ii.,  v.  13; 
Luke  states,   on  the  contrary,  c.  ii.,  v.  21,  that  they 


« 


172 


THE    CONSISTENCY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


did  not  go,  but  remained  where  they  were  until  after 
Christ  was  circumcised,  and  that  they  went  up  wUli 
him  to  Jerusalem,  to  present  him  m  the  temple,  tlic 
most  public  place  in  tiie  kingdom,  and  almost  into 
ilerod  s  presijiice  !  !  !     What  consistency  !         ^^       ,, 

(Jailing  the  apostles.  Matthew,  c.  iv-;/-  1^'  ^^^'^ 
us  that  Christ  was  walking  by  the  sea  of  Galilee,  and 
Peter  and  Andrew  were  in  their  ships  hshing,^wlien 
he  called  them  ;  but  L.uke  allhins,  c.  v.,  v.  o,  tnat 
Christ  himself  was  sittmg  in  their  ships  teachmg  the 
people  on  shore,  and  the  ii:  hernien  were  out  washing 
tlK^ir  nets.  John's  story,  however,  c.  i.,  v.  o.)  to  l^l, 
is  dilTerent  from  both.  He  says  nothing  about  these 
men  being  lishermen,  nor  is  there  the  least  allusion 
to  fishing,  lie  informs  us  that  they  were  merely 
followers  of  John  the  Baptist. 

Another   case   is.  the  calling  of  an  apost  e,   whose 
nume   Matthew  says,  c.  ix.,  v.  9,  was   Matthew;  bu 
Mark  declares,  c.  ii.,  v.  11,  his  name  was  Levi—ana 
yet,    according   to   their  own  list,    there    was  not   an 

apostle  of  tliat  name  !  i  •     i\/r  . 

(jhrist's  sermon  on  the  Mount  is  mentioned  m  Mat- 
thew c  i  V.  17,  that  he  delivered  this  tamous  sermon 
while  slandin^r  m  a  plain.  Matthew's  statement, 
therefore,  of  his  delivering  it  while  stituisr  on  a  hill,  is 
inconsistent  with  Luke's.  When  he  had  concluded 
this  memorable  discourse,  Matthew  remarks,  c.  vni., 
V  2  that  he  cleansed  a  leper  ;  but  Mark  records,  c. 
i  V  40  that  he  performed  this  cure  when  he  was 
preaching  in  the  synagogues  throughout  Galilee 

In  MaUhew,  c.  viii.,  v.  5,  we  are  informed,  that 
when  (Jhrist  arrived  at  Capernaum,  a  centurion  came 
to  him  and  begged  of  him  to  come  and  hea  Ins  ser- 
vant ;  but  Luke  says,  c.  vii.,  v.  3-/ ,  that  the  centu- 
rion only  sent  for  him.     Which  was  the  fact  ] 

Similar  inconsistencies  will  be  found  in  the  story  ot 
his  curing  Peter's  wife  — casting  out  ot  devils,  and 
sending  them  into  the  herd  of  swine,  and  other  tales 
loo  contemptible  to  mention. 


THE    CONSISTENCY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


173 


We  will  proceed  to  the  meeting  of  .Tohn  the  Baptist 
and  Christ.  By  referring  to  Matthew,  c.  x.,  and  xi., 
we  learn  that  it  was  afie?-  Christ  had  sent  out  his 
a})osiles.  that  John  sent  his  message  to  Christ;  but  by 
reading  fiUkc,  c.  vii.,  and  ix.,  we  find  that  it  was  (be- 
fore he  sent  out  his  apostles,  that  John  sent  to  him. 

The  story  of  feeding  the  multitude,  is  replete  with 
contradictions.  Matthew  says,  c.  xiv.,  v.  21,  that 
there  were  5000,  besides  women  and  children  ;  but  in 
liuke,  c.  ix.,  V.  11,  no  women  and  children  are  men- 
tioned. In  Matthew,  c.  xv..  v.  34,  we  are  told  they 
had  seven  loaves  and  a  few  little  fishes ;  Luke  says, 
(to  improve  upon  the  miracle,)  that  they  had  only 
five  loaves  and  two  fishes,  and  that  there  were  12 
baskets  full  of  fragments  left. 

Tlie  account  of  Christ's  anointment,  also,  afibrds  an 
instance  of  the  irreconcileable  disagreement  of  the 
evangelical  history.  Matthew,  c.  xxvi.,  v.  2,  and 
Mark,  c.  xiv.,  v.  1,  tell  us,  this  was  done  two  da^^'s 
before  the  last  Passover;  but  .lohn,  c.  xii.,  v.  1,  says 
it  was  six  days  ;  Luke,  however,  c.  vii.,  v.  3G,  de- 
clares that  it  was  more  than  two  years  before  that  pe- 
riod. The  place  wlierein  it  was  performed,  Matthew 
and  Mark  say,  was  the  house  of  Simon  the  licper ; 
but  Luke  states,  it  was  in  the  house  of  a  Pharisee; 
while  .Tohn  records  it  as  occunini!:  in  the  house  of 
Lazarus  !  Matthew  and  Mark  say  the  woman  })oured 
the  ointment  on  his  head  ;  but,  according  to  Luke 
and  John,  it  was  on  his  feet — a  pretty  concordance, 
truly ! 

Did  time  permit,  I  could  edify  you  with  some  sin- 
gul.'ir  and  amusing  discrepancies  in  the  stories  of  the 
transfiguration  of  Christ,  his  restoring  the  blind,  his 
taking  the  ass,  the  last  supper,  his  denial  by  Peter, 
his  betrayment  by  Judas,  &c., — but  having  almost  oc- 
cupied my  time,  I  must  hasten  to  the  account  of  his 
crucifixion. 

Matthew  relates,  c.  xxvii.,  v.  34,  that  when  they  liad 
brought  Christ  to  the  place  of  execution,  they  gave 

15* 


1 


I 


in 


THE  CONSISTENCY  OF  THE  BIBLE. 


THE  CONSISTENCY  OF  THE  BIBLE. 


175 


him  vinegar  to  drink,  mingled  with  gall ;  bnt  Mark 
records,  c.  xv.,  v.  25,  that  it  was  wine  mingled  with 
myrrh.  Wliich  was  it]  AVhich  of  these  ''infallible" 
men  speak  the  truth  l  Mark  states,  c.  xv..  v.  25,  that 
he  was  crncilied  at  the  third  hour;  but  .Tohn  says  it 
was  the  sixth.  Matthew  informs  us  that  both  the 
thieves,  wlio  were  executed  with  Christ,  reviled  him  ; 
but  liuke  says  it  was  only  one  of  them  who  reviled 
him,  and  the  other  rebuked  his  companion  for  so 
donig  !     Which  account  is  true? 

Similar  inconsistencies  will  also  be  detected  in  the 
accounts  given  of  the  superscription  placed  over  the 
head  of  Christ,  and  also  in  many  other  matters,  but 
I  have  not  time  to  enumerate  them. 

I  must  speak  of  the  resurrection.  ]*^irst,  of  those 
who  came  to  the  sepulchre.  Mattlunv,  c.  xxviii.,  v.  1, 
states,  that  it  was  Mary  Magdalene,  and  another  Ma- 
ry who  came  :  liUke  says.  c.  xxiv.,  v.  10,  it  was  the 
two  Marys,  and  .h^hanna  and  other  women,  who 
came;  while,  according  to  .Tohn,  c.  xx.,  v.  1,  Mary 
Magdalene  came  alone  !  !  Well  may  there  be  a  ne- 
cessity for  priests  to  write  "  liarmonies  to  the  gospels.'' 

Matthew,  c.  xxviii.,  v.  2,  observes,  that  an  '•  angel 
descended  from  heaven,  and  rolled  back  the  stone 
from  the  door,  and  sat  iipo?i  it ;  ''  while  Mark,  c.  xvi., 
V.  4,  mentions,  that  he  was  not  sitting  outside,  but 
inside  tlic  scptdc/tre^  o?i  tJic  right  side.  We  learn  from 
Matthew,  that  the  visitants  ireiit  av: ay  from  the  sepul- 
chre somewhat  ahniptlij  :  bnt  Mark  says,  they  ue?d 
into  it.  When  they  entered,  Mark  declares  that  they 
saw  o?tc  young  man,  clothed  in  a  long  irhite  garment, 
(wliether  it  was  a  shirt  or  surplice,  we  do  not  learn.) 
si/tijfif  lit  the  right  side  ;  bnt  Luke  gives  an  opposite 
statement — he  says,  there  were  two  young  men,   and 


they  were  standing,  and  had  on  shining  garments. — 
Matthew  records,  c.    xxviii.,    v.   5.  6,    that    the    ang 


to!;l  the  women  of  Christ's  rising  iVom  the  dead;  but 
John  says,  c.  xx.,  v.  11 — 17,  that  Christ  told  them 
himself;  a^cordiu**  -^  Luke,  c.  xxiv.,  v.  12,  when  Peter 


came  to  the  sepulchre,  he  only  looked  into  it,  and  did 
7^o/  go  in;  but  John  airirms,  c.  xx.,  v.  5,  G,  that  hcdid 
go  m^  and  another  disciple  icith  him;.  Matthew  relates, 
c.   xxviii.,  V.  9,  that  when   they  saw  him,    they    vor- 
shippedhim,   m\di  held  him  by  the  feet ;  but  John  de- 
clares, c.   xx.,  V.  17,  that  Christ  icould  not    let    them 
touch  him!     What   consistency!     What  infallibility  ! 
We    now   approach  the   last  scene  of  this  amusing 
farce  —  the    Ascension.      In    ?Jatthevv,   c.    xxviii.,   v. 
7 — 17,  it  is  intimated,  that  tlie  disciples  went  to  (/ali- 
lee  to  meet  Jesus,  according  to  appointment ;  but  Luke 
tells  us,  c.  xxiv.,  v.  33— :](3,  he  appeared  to  them  mi- 
cxpectedly  at  Jerusalem  ;  Lulce  says,  also,  that  when 
they  did  meet  him,    the  disciples  were  terrified;  but 
John  says,  c.  xx.,  v.  20,  they  were  glad  to  meet  him  ! 
According  to  Luke,  v.  35,   the  whole  of  the  eleven 
apostles  were  there ;  but  John  states,   that  the  apostle 
Thomas  was  absent,  and  when  told  of  it,  he  icould  not 
heliere  it.     Incredulous  man  !     Mark  says,  c.  xvi.,  v. 
19,  that  Christ  ascended  into  heaven, //y>/;i  the  place 
where  the  apostles  were  .^at  at  meat;  but  Luke  affirms, 
c.  xxiv.,  V.  50,  that  lie  first  led  them  out  to  Bethany.^ 
and  that  there  his  ascension  took  place. 

In  Luke,  c.  xxiv.,  v.  13,  we  read,  that  Christ's  as- 
cension took  place  on  the  same  day  as  his  resurrection 
— in  the  evening ;  while  we  understand  from  John,  c. 
XX.,  V.  26,  that  he  appeared  to  his  disciples  several 
times,  and  remained  upon  the  earth  many  days; 
(some  say  forty,)  performing  so  many  "wonders," 
that  Jolin  says,  if  they  were  written,  the  WORLD 
would  not  be  large  enough  to  cojitain  all  the  books  !  !  ! 
With  this  marvellous  statement,  John  closes  his  gos- 
pel, and  verily  it  is  a  closer  ! 

Consistent  evangelists  —  ''inspired"  and  '' infalli- 
ble "  historians,  indeed,  scarcely  to  agree  in  any  one 
particular,  on  any  subject !  Were  the  same  number 
of  incongruities,  equally  gross  and  palpable,  exhibited 
by  four  witnesses,  in  the  meanest  conrt  in  the  land, 
upon  the  most  frivolous  case   imaginable,  their  testi- 


I 


i 


17G 


THE    CONSISTENCY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


mony  would  be  scouted  with  indignation  and  con- 
tempt. Why  tlien  should  such  evidence  be  admitted 
in  relation  to  matters  which  arc  solemnly  proclaimed 
to  be,  of  all  others,  the  most  sacred  and  momentous, 
involving  the  welfare  of  humanity,  both  now  and 
•'  through  life  everlasting"  1  Strange  infatuation  ! — 
Blind  credulity  !  Monstrous  perversion  of  common 
sense,  and  moral  principle  ! 

My  friends,  I  have  reviewed  a  few,  and  but  a  few, 
of  the  inconsistencies  observable  in  this  precious  pro- 
duction. Though  I  have  only  presented  a  modicum  of 
what  could  be  adduced,  I  flatter  myself  I  have  offered 
sufficient  to  invalidate  the  credibility  of  anij  book, 
much  less  one  which  is  alleged  to  be  divuiely  inspired. 
That  man  who  would  venture  to  uphold  the  infallibi- 
hty  of  the  Bible,  in  the  face  of  this  prodigious  mass  of 
incongruity,  is  one  who  would  set  at  naught  all  ac- 
knowledged criterion  of  truth,  and  all  established  prin- 
ciples of  rational  evidence,  and  the  best  advice  1  can 
render  him  is  to  "  get  wisdom,  and  with  all  thy  get- 
ting, get  iinderstaiiding,^^ 


LECTTTRE  TENTH. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  BIBLK 


Friends — 

This  evening  we  sliall  discuss  the  morality  of  tlie 
Bible.  Believers  in  this  book  are  remarkably  fond 
of  exhibiting  its  excellencies  in  this  respect.  When 
driven  from  every  other  position,  they  generally  take 
refuge  behind  what  they  term  the  divine  "morals" 
of  the  "Word  of  God."  However  discomfitted  they 
may  have  been  upon  other  questions  connected  with 
the  divinity  of  the  Scriptures,  on  resorting  to  this 
"  strong-hold,"  their  courage  is  revived,  and,  like  the 
omnipotent  Deity  after  resting  on  the  seventh  day, 
they  return  to  the  encounter  quite  "refreshed."  I 
must  say,  it  is  somewhat  astonishing,  such  bravado 
and  exultation  should  be  exhibited  upon  a  point,  in 
which  I  conceive,  the  Scriptures  are  more  vulnerable 
than  any  other.  I  cannot  account  for  such  a  para- 
dox, except  that  the  Christian  world,  knowing  their 
weakness  upon  this  head,  are  desirous  to  supply  the 
deficiency,  by  assumption  and  dogmatism.  Things 
generally  make  the  greatest  noise  when  they  are  most 
empty. 

My  friends,  if  there  is  one  thing  connected  with  this 
controversy  clearer  than  another,  it  is  that  the  Bible 
is  an  immoral  pubhcation.  I  will  allow,  before  I 
proceed,  that  there  are  a  feiv  redeeming  qualities — a 
sprinkling  of  good  passages,   (and   in  what  book  is 


4 


178 


THE    MORALITY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


THE    MORALITY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


179 


■m 

there  not  sfymcthing  good?)  but  these  passages  are 
so  rare,  that  ^4ike  angels'  visits/'  they  arc  "lew  and 
far  between."  But,  even  the  unexceptionable  parts, 
limited  though  they  be,  are  by  no  means  origmal. 
Most  of  them  are  merely  borrowed  from  other  produc- 
tions, as  it  is  incontestable  that  moral  precepts,  equal- 
ly admirable,  were  taught  by  the  sages  of  (ircece,  the 
philosophers  of  Rome,  the  Brahmins  of  India,  and  the 
Reformer  of  China,  long  anterior  to  the  introduction 
of  Christianity— before  either  the  Old  or  New  Testa- 
ment were  written. 

1  shall  comment  at  length  upon  this  subject  in  a 
subsecpient  lecture.  I  will  only  remark,  at  this  mo- 
ment, that  Thales,  Pittacus,  and  Confucius,  wise  and 
i^ood  men  whose  ethics,  in  many  respects,  were  iden- 
tical with  those  of  the  Scriptures,  llourishcd  at  a 
much  caiiicr  })eriod  tlian  Christianity.  Thales  lived 
GOO  years  before  Christ;  Pittacus,  570  ;  and  Coniu- 
cius,  500.  These  three  distinguished  men  taught  the 
very  doctrine  of  which  Christians  are  so  proud,  and 
aliirm  is  so  eminently  peculiar  to  their  system,  viz., 
'■'  Do   unto  others  as  you   would  wish  others   to  do 

unto  you." 

Thales  say-,  Avoid  doing  what  you  would  blame 
others  for  doing."  Pittacus  enjoins,  -'Avoid  doing 
that  to  your  neighbor  which  you  would  take  amiss 
if  he  were  to  do  to  you."  And  Confucius  taught, 
"  Do  to  another  what  you  would  they  should  do  unto 
you,  and  do  not  unto  another  what  you  would  should 
NOT  be  done  unto  you:  thou  only  needest  this  law 
alone ;  it  is  the  foundation  and  principle  of  all  the 
rest."— Moral  24. 

These  sentiments  are  exactly  the  same  as  those  en- 
forced by  Christ  500  years  afterwards. 

Mr.  Dnnlap,  in  his' justly  celebrated  defence  of  Ab- 
ner  Kneeland,  the  Amc^rican  Freethinker,  indignantly 
asks,  '•  Was  there  no  morality  in  the  days  of  Homer, 
Pythagoras,  Solon,  Plato,  Aristotle,  Cicero  and  ^  irgil? 
Was  there   no  morality  in  the  vast,  populous,  and 


civilized  empire  of  China  in  the  time  of  Confucius? 
Was  there  no  morality  in  the  kingdom  of  Egypt, 
where,  before  even  the  commandments  were  given, 
'mid  the  thunders  of  Mount  Sinai,  Benjamin  was 
accused  of  an  offence  against  morality,  because  of 
the  cup  of  Joseph  which  was  found  in  his  sack? 
Was  there  no  morality  among  the  immense  nations 
of  the  American  continent,  stretching  almost  from 
pole  to  pole,  till  the  lofty  and  daring  genius  of  Co- 
lumbus impelled  him  to  the  discovery  of  the  New 
World?  Has  there  been  no  morality  from  the  ear- 
liest times  in  those  seats  of  innocence  and  contem- 
plation, the  dwellings  of  the  Brahmins?"  Granting, 
then,  that  there  may  be  a  feiv  moral  precepts  in  the 
Bible,  they  are  but  borrowed — second-hand;  and, 
therefore,  if  we  are  indebted  to  any  one  for  these 
morals,  it  is  not  to  Christianity,  but  to  men  greater 
than  any  recorded  in  the  "  Holy  Word." 

Not  only,  however,  are  these  precepts  not  original, 
but  many  of  them  are  utterly  impracticable,  and, 
therefore,  useless ;  nay,  some,'  if  they  were  to  be 
literally  followed,  would  be  actually  pernicious,  in- 
asmuch as  tliey  would  destroy  the  physical  and 
mental  industry  of  man,  and  inevitably  lead  to  fam- 
ine, ignorance,  and  misery.  For  instance,  in  Matt., 
c.  vi.,  V.  25,  20,  we  are  told  to  "take  no  thought  for 
your  hie,  what  ye  shall  eat,  or  what  ye  shall  drink, 
nor  yet  for  your  body  what  ye  shall  put  on.  Is  not 
the  life  more  than  meat,  and  the  body  than  raiment/ 
Behold  the  fowls  of  the  air,  for  they  sow  not.  neither 
do  they  reap,  nor  gather  into  barns,  yet  your  heavenly 
father  feedeth  them.  Are  ye  not  much  better  than 
they?"  What  would  follow  the  practice  of  such  a 
doctrine  as  this  ?  Utter  confusion,  want,  and  degra- 
dation. Supposing  the  people  were  to  adopt  it — 
supposing  the  working  classes  were  to  begin  to  ex- 
hibit such  pious  indifference  to  things  carnal,  and,  in 
pursuance  of  that  virtuous  resolve,  were  to  acquaint 
his  Grace  the  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  that  they 


t* 


180 


THE    MORALITY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


were  truly  penitent  for  having  so  long  committed  so 
grievous  a  sin  as  to  earn  their  bread  (and  his  bread,) 
by  the  "  sweat  of  their  brow,"  and  that  now  they 
were  really  determined  upon  being  good  Christians, 
in  "  caring  not  as  to  what  they  should  eat,  or  what 
they  should  drink,"  but  that  they  and  he,  and  the 
rest  of  the  idle  drones  of  the  community,  should  de- 
pend for  their  subsistence,  ''like  the  fowls  of  the  air," 
upon  their  "  heavenly  father,"  how  queer  he  would 
look,  and  how  he  would  laugh  at  them  for  adopting 
the  very  system  he  is  paid  to  teach  !  Heaven  knows 
it  would  be  a  fortunate  thing  for  the  starving  millions 
if  this  doctrine  could  be  really  practised  !  Many  are 
they  who  are  now  precluded  from  producing  food 
either  to  "eat  "  or  to  "drink."  I  would  advise  them, 
therefore,  "to  shut  their  eyes,  open  their  mouth,  and 
see  what  God  will  send  them  J'  and  never  more  be  so 
wicked  and  irreligimis  as  to  wish  to  work  to  provide 
for  themselves  and  families ! 

Again,  in  Mark,  c.  v.,  v.  44,  it  is  said,  "  Love  your 
enemies."  But  who  can  do  this?  It  is  morally  im- 
possible. You  may  j^^ly  your  enemies — -forgive  them, 
but  so  long  as  they  are  your  enemies,  you  cannot 
love  them.  It  is  inherent  in  human  nature  that 
man  should  like  that  which  imparts  pleasure,  and 
dislike  that  which  produces  pain.  You  might  as 
well,  therefore,  have  been  commanded  to  love  the 
viper  that  would  destroy  you,  as  the  enemy  who 
would  ruin  you. 

From  these  instances,  it  is  obvious,  that  what  little 
morality  the  Bible  contains  is  stolen,  impracticable, 
or  absurd. 

Considering  this  notorious  oracle,  therefore,  in  the 
most  favorable  point  of  view,  it  is  but  a  miserable 
production. 

We  will  now  glance  at  the  dark  side  of  the  picture, 
and  dark  indeed  it  is  !  What  scenes  of  crime,  butch- 
ery, and  obscenity  open  to  our  view !  My  blood 
grows  cold  with  horror  when  I  think  of  the  atrocities 
which  it  details. 


THE    MORALITY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


181 


If,  my  friends,  there  be  no  other  argument  against 
the  divinity  of  tlic  Bible  but  its  immorality  and  ob- 
scenity, THAT  alone  is  sufficient  to  condemn  it.  A 
book  emanating  from  a  Being  of  purity,  wisdom,  and 
love,  would  of  necessity  have  been  presented  free 
from  all  moral  impurity,  and  clothed  in  language 
beautiful  and  chaste.  To  assert,  therefore,  that  a 
book  like  the  Bible  is  a  revelation  from  such  a  Being, 
is  to  aver  that  which  is  truly  monstrous.  Talk  of 
blasphemy  and  blasphemers — if  there  be  such  a  thing 
as  "blasphemy,"  and  such  men  as  "  blasphemers  " — 
they  are  certainly  those  who  maintain  the  divinity  of 
the  Bible!  Its  pages  ought  to  make  any  virtuous 
and  enlightened  man  blush. 

Apprehend  not,  that  I  intend  to  wound  your  feel- 
ings, or  offend  propriety,  by  quoting  these  obscenities. 
I  would  not  pollute  my  lips  with  them.  However 
Christians  may  admire  them,  I  should  feel  for  the 
individual  who  would  attempt  to  read  them  'publicly. 
I  shall,  therefore,  abstain  from  quoting  the  impurities 
of  the  Bible.  Those  who  wish  to  become  acquainted 
Avith  tlmt  portion  of  the  subject,  would  perhaps  do 
well  to  possess  themselves  of  a  small  work  of  mine, 
entitled  "The  Holy  Scriptures  Analyzed,  or  Extracts 
from  the  Bible;  showing  its  contradictions,  absur- 
dities, and  immoralities." 

I  find  on  reading  the  celebrated  discussion  between 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Greg  and  the  Rev.  Mr.  Maguire,  at 
Dublin,  (the  former  a  Protestant  minister,  and  the 
latter  a  Catholic  priest,)  Mr.  Maguire  made  the  fol- 
lowing observations  upon  this  point : — "I  beg  of  you 
not  to  continue  such  a  practice;  it  is  disreputable. 
I  will  ask  Mr.  Greg  a  question,  and  I  beg  of  you  my 
brethren  of  the  Protestant  Church  to  bear  this  in 
mind,  I  will  ask  him,  if  he  dare  to  take  up  the  Bible 
and  read  from  the  book  of  Genesis  the  fact  of  Onaii — 
I  ask  him  will  he  read  that?  Will  he  read  the  fact 
relative  to  Lot  and  his  two  daughters  ]  Will  he  read 
these  and  many  other  passages  which  I  could  point 

10 


l> 


t 
i 


182 


Tin:    MORALITY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


THE    MORALITY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


183 


out  to  him  in  the  Holy  Bihle,  which  I  would  not 
take  one  thousand  guineas,  nay,  all  tlie  money  in  t'lc 
world,  and  read  it  here  to-day."  A  signilicant  cir- 
cunisttuice  that  a  priest  should  he  asJiamcd  to  read 
from  a  hook  which  he  believes  was  inspired  by  <  'od  ! 
Listen  to  the  extraordinary  declaration  of  Richard 
I.alor  Shiel,  Esq.,  M.  P.,  member  of  the  Wliig  ad- 
ministration, and  one  of  the  privy  councillors  to  the 
Queen.  In  the  Church  of  Ireland  Magazine  for  1825, 
the  following  language  is  ascribed  to  that  brilliant 
orator: — '-Many  passages  in  Scripture  were  written 
with  such  force,  and  he  might  say,  with  nakedness 
of  diction,  as  rendered  them  u.ntit  for  indiscriminate 
perusal.  There  were  parts  of  the  Old  Testament  in 
which  images  of  voluptuousness  were  presented  to 
the  mind  on  which  the  imagination  of  a  youthful  fe- 
male ought  not  to  be  permitted  to  repose.  He  would 
venture  to  assert  that  the  Odes  of  Anacreon  did  not 
display  more  luxury  of  imagination,  or  combine  more 
sensual  associations  than  parts  of  the  (.)ld  Testament, 
''rhe  Bible  contained  details  of  atrocity  at  which  hu- 
man nature  shuddered.  Part  of  the  holy  writings 
consisted  of  history,  and  of  the  narration  of  facts  of 
a  kind  that  could  not  be  mentioned  in  the  presence  of 
a  virtuous  woman  without  exciting  horror.  Should 
a  woman  be  permitted  to  read  hi  her  chamber,  what 
she  would  tremble  to  hear  at  her  domestic  board  7 
Shall  she  con  over  and  revolve  what  she  would  rather 
die  than  utter  ?  " 

What  kind  of  a  book,  my  friends,  can  that  be,  at 
the  perusal  of  which,  a  virtuous  mind  must  shudder '? 
Can  it  be  the  word  of  a  God  '?  Ah  !  let  the  Christian 
world  blush  at  their  effrontery,  and  cease  to  exclaim 
against  ^'  blasphemy  and  impiety.'' 

Having  explained  myself  upon  this  subject,  I  shall 
proceed  to  consider  some  of  those  passages  which  in- 
culcate or  connive  at  immorality.  I  shall  begin,  by 
describing  the  leading  characters  of  the  Bible — the 
lieroes   of  this  improbable   tale,    the  favorites  of  the 


Bible  Cod  !  These  personages,  we  might  have  pre- 
sumed, vrcrc  paragons  of  perfection,  the  beau  ideal  of 
intellectual  and  moral  beauty,  but  instead  of  such  pre- 
sumption being  realized,  I  boldly  assert  that  the  ma- 
jority of  them  were  the  most  cunnmg,  cruel,  and  des- 
picable characters  on  record. 

The  first  of  these  Scripture  paraijons  I  shall  name, 
is  Noah  —  the  only  individual,  with  his  family,  who 
was  considered  worthy  of  being  saved  at  the  Deluge. 
Surely,  he  was  a  moral  man.  Very  moral !  for  we 
read  in  Cen.,  c.  ix.,  v.  21,  22,  that  he  was  found  in 
such  a  state  of  obscene  drunkenness,  that  I  forbear 
quoting  the  passage.  If  there  were  many  Noahs  in 
the  world,  teetotalism,  I  apprehend,  would  be  at  a  dis- 
count. I  will  ask,  was  it  a  moral  act  upon  the  part 
of  Noah,  to  curse  his  own  son  ?  See  Cen.,  c.  ix.,  v.  25. 
If  all  fathers  were  to  take  Noah  as  a  pattern,  paternal 
affection  would  be  unknown. 

Abraham,  the  patriarch,  we  read  in  Gen.,  c.  20,  v. 
1 — 5,  uttered  the  most  barefaced  falsehood  to  Abime- 
lecli.  King  of  Gerar.  He  unblushingly  told  him  that 
his  wife  was  not  his  wife,  but  only  his  sister;  and  in 
Gen.,  c.  xxi.,  v.  9,  10 — 14,  we  learn,  that  he  put  out 
one  of  his  wives,  the  Egyptian  Ilagar,  and  left  her 
and  her  child  to  wander  in  the  "  wilderness  of  Beer- 
sheba."     The  unfeeling  brute  ! 

Isaac,  the  son  of  Abraliam,  another  very  prominent 
character  in  the  early  history  of  the  l^ible,  followed 
the  virtuous  example  of  his  father.  In  Gen.  c.  xxvi., 
V.  7 — 9,  it  states  that  he,  also,  denied  his  wife.  The 
story  is  truly  obscene. 

Jacob,  the  favored  son  of  Isaac,  and  the  person 
whom,  we  read  in  Malachi,  c.  i.,  v.  2,  3,  the  liord 
loved  so  much,  endeavored  to  deceive  his  own  father. 
Gen.  c.  xxvii.,  v.  19.  He,  also,  robbed  his  ov/n  bro- 
ther, Esau,  as  stated  in  v.  36  ;  and  in  c.  xxix.,  and 
xxx.,  we  read  of  his  perpetrating  three  of  the  greatest 
crimes  that  a  man  could  commit-;— incest,  polygamy, 
and  adultery. 


1 


184 


THE    MORALITY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


i 


Moses,  the  "meekest  man"  in  history,  and  private 
socretary  to  the  Bible-Ciod,  was  a  dclibcrale  murderer 
— a  wretch,  who,  in  this  country,  would  be  deemed 
unfit  to  live.  In  Exodus,  c.  ii.,  v.  11,  12.  we  road, 
"  And  it  came  to  pass  m  those  days,  when  Moses  was 
grown,  that  he  went  out  unto  his  brethren,  and  looked 
on  their  burdens,  and  he  spied  an  Egyptian  smiting 
an  Hebrew,  one  of  his  brethren.  And  he  looked  this 
way,  and  that  way,  and  when  he  saw  that  there  was 
no  man,  he  slew  the  l']gyptian,  and  hid  him  in  the 
sand."  This  is  absolute,  unqualified  homicide.  But 
Moses  was,  also,  an  instigator  to  murder,  on  a  largt; 
scale,  as  seen  particularly  in  Numbers,  c.  xxxi.  He 
was,  likewise,  an  inciter  to  prostitution,  as  evidenced 
in  V.  17,  and  18,  of  that  chapter.  The  butcheries,  in- 
deed, committed  at  the  instance  of  that  divine  favor- 
ite, are  unparalleled. 

Joshua  was  well  worthy  of  his  meek  predecessor. 
The  atrocities  perpetrated  by  him,  "in  the  name  of 
the  liord,"  are  truly  frightful — I  decline  quoting  them. 
You  may  refer  to  the  book  of  Joshua,  c.  x.,  v.  17 — 26, 
if  you  arc  disposed  to  gratit'y  your  curiosity. 

Samuel,  the  next  Bible  hero,  was  the  heaii  ideal  of 
a  priest.  To  reason  with  his  opponents,  he  consider- 
ed a  loss  of  time.  He  could  best  dispose  of  their  ob- 
jections, b}j  aittm^  off  their  heads  !  We  are  told,  in 
the  1st  Sanuiel,  c.  xv.,  v.  33,  that  he  "hewed  Agag  in 
pieces  before  the  Lord,  in  Gilgal  :  "  and  in  v.  3,  of  the 
same  chapter,  we  observe  his  priestly  hatred  so  im- 
placable, that  it  extended  itself  to  the  very  himtcs.  He 
orders  Saul  to  go  and  "  smite  Amalek,  and  utterly  de- 
stroy all  that  they  have,  and  spare  them  not,  but  slay 
both  man  and  woman,  infant  and  suckling,  camel  and 
ass  ! ''  A  pretty  command  to  be  given  by  one  of  a 
body  of  men  who  ought  to  be  examples  to  their  fel- 
low creatures  ! 

We  read,  in  2  Kings,  c.  ii.,  v.  23,  21,  that  Elisha, 
another  Bible  hero,  and  "man  of  God,"  cursed  some 
little  children  "  in  the  name  of  the  Lord,"  for  simply 


THE    MORALITY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


185 


exclaiming,  in  their  childish  frolic,  "bald-head.;  "  and 
that  the  liOrd  very  kindly  listened  to  his  curses,  and 
instantly  there  appeared  two  she  bears,  who  devoured 
forty-two  of  the  youngsters  !  Such  an  old  "  inspired  " 
brute  was  highly  deserving  of  Biblical  distinction. 

David,  who  is  called  "the  man  after  God's  own 
heart,"  and,  therefore,  the  person,  who,  above  all 
others,  ought  to  have  afiJ'orded  the  finest  specimen  of 
humanity,  was  the  very  embodiment  of  depravity 
and  brutality.  In  the  2d  Samuel,  c.  xi.,  v.  2-0,  we 
are  told  of  his  committing  adultery  under  the  most 
revolting  circumstances.  In  the  1st  Samuel,  c.  xxi., 
V.  12,  13,  we  learn  of  his  descending  to  the  most 
disgusting  dissimulation  before  Acish,  the  King  of 
Gatli.  In  2d  Samuel,  c.  xii.,  v.  29-31,  a  scene  of  the 
most  liorrible  butchery  is  presented  to  us,  occasioned 
by  this  prototype  of  the  Bible  Deity.  He  put  the 
people  of  Rabbah  "  under  saics  and  under  harrows  of 
iron,  and  a.ves  of  iron.,  and  made  them  pass  through 
the  briclc-kilns  ;  and  thus  did  he  unto  all  the  cities  of 
the  children  of  Ammon."  Cruelty  like  this  could  not 
be  surpassed.  David  exhibited  his  natural  ferocity 
of  character  even  upon  his  very  death-bed.  Speak- 
ing of  the  son  of  Gera,  a  Benjamite,  he  enjoins  his 
son  Solomon,  almost  in  his  last  breath,  "  Now,  there- 
fore, hold  him  not  guiltless,  for  thou  art  a  wise  man, 
and  knowest  what  thou  oughtest  to  do  unto  him; 
but  his  hoary  head  bring  thou  down  to  the  grave 
with  blood  !  "  1  Kings,  c.  ii.,  v.  8,  9.  Did  ever  mor- 
tal man  die  with  such  a  curse  on  his  lips  ?  Did  any 
father,  at  such  a  moment,  exhort  a  child  to  the  com- 
mission of  such  crimes !  Oh  !  what  an  example  to 
the  world  !     What  morality  !     What  humanity  ! 

Solomon's  career,  though  he  is  proclaimed  to  be  the 
"wisest  man"  tliat  ever  lived,  was  only  that  of  a 
voluptuary  aud  debauchee.  Were  the  human  race  to 
follow  his  bright  example,  virtue  and  chastity  would 
be  mere  names.  To  convince  you  of  the  justness  of 
my  remarks,  I  need  but  remind  vou  that  in  1  Kings, 

10^ 


3  - 

I 


ISG 


THE    MORALITY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


THE    MORALITY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


187 


i 


c.  xi.,  V.  3,  it  states,  "And  lie  (Solomon)  had  seven 
hundred  wives,  princesses,  and  three  hundred  con- 
cuhines,  and  his  wives  turned  away  his  heart ! " 
His  songs,  wliich  from  liis  ^'wlsdm/i,'^  ought  to  have 
been  the  perfection  of  purity  and  correctness  of  style, 
are  so  lascivious,  that  many  of  them  would  disgust 
the  most  depraved  ])acchanalian.  I  will  not  quote 
them.  You  may  read  them  for  yourselves,  particu- 
larly c.  vii.,  V.  1-1. 

The  characters  here  reviewed  constitute  the  "great 
Ughts"  of  the  OA/ Testament,  and  pretty  lights  they 
arc!  Those  of  the  New  are  Jesus  Christ' — and  his 
three  principal  apostles,  Paul,  Peter,  and  .lohn.  In 
my  third  address,  I  had  occasion  to  speak  at  length 
of  Christ  and  the  two  former  aj)ostles,  as  illustrative 
of  the  system  of  imposture  pursued  by  the  early 
Christians,  to  which  observations  I  beg  to  refer  you. 
I  need  not,  therefore,  on  this  occasion,  occupy  much 
of  your  time  with  remarks  upon  these  passages. 

I  may  ask,  however,  what  morality  is  there  in  the 
following  account  of  the  genealogy  of  .lesus  Christ, 
the  "  Saviour "  of  the  world  —  one  whose  origin, 
above  all  other  beings,  should  have  been  honoriible 
and  illustrious?  I  will  quote  the  language  of  Dr. 
Alexander  Walker,  in  his  work  on  "Woman,"  p. 
330, — a  writer  eminent  as  a  Christian,  not  an  Infidel. 
Had  such  an  observation  been  made  by  one  of  my 
class,  it  would  have  been  denounced  "blasphemous." 
"  It  is  remarkable,"  says  he,  "that,  in  the  genealogy, 
of  Christ,  only  four  women  have  been  named!  Tha- 
mar,  who  seduced  the  father  of  her  late  husband; 
Racliel,  a  common  prostitute;  Ruth,  who,  instead  of 
marrying  one  of  her  cousins,  woit  to  bed  with  anothei^ 
of  them ;  and  BetJisJieha  an  adulteress^  who  espoused 
David,  tJie  inurderer  of  her  first  husband  !  "  What 
a  pedigree! — and  for  the  "Son  of  God,"  too!  1 
should  be  ashamed  of  such  an  origin.  No  wonder 
that  our  virtuous  aristocracy  are  so  inditferent  about 
their  "illustrious"  ancestors!     In   Luke,   c.  xxii.,  v. 


36,  Christ  gives  the  following  command  to  his  peace- 
able dupes — a  command  which  may  suit  the  taste  of 
the  "  Iron  Duke," — "But  now  he  that  hath  a  purse, 
let  him  take  it ;  and  he  that  hath  no  sword,  let  liim 
sell  his  garment  and  buy  one  !  "  In  -lohn,  c.  xv.,  v. 
0,  he  charitably  exclaims.  "  If  a  man  abide  not  in  me, 
he  is  cast  forth  as  a  brancli  and  is  withered^  and  men 
gather  them,  and  cast  them  into  theyire,  and  they  arc 
burncdJ^  xVgain,  in  Luke,  c.  xiv.,  v.  26,  "  If  a  man 
come  to  me  and  hate  not  his  father  and  mother,  and 
wife  and  children,  and  brethren  and  sisters,  yea,  his 
own  life  also,  he  cannot  be  my  disciple."  If  this 
absurd  and  inhuman  doctrine  was  followed,  all  do- 
mestic comfort  and  aflcction  would  be  annihilated. 
For  other  passages  relative  to  Christ ;  see  Luke,  c. 
xii..  V.  49-51 ;  Matt.,  c.  x.,  v.  34,  3.5  ;  Mark,  c.  xvi., 
V.  16;  Mark,  c.  iv.,  v.  11,  12;  Mark,  c.  xi.,  v.  1-3, 
which  detail  the  affair  of  the  colt — an  act  for  which 
a  man  would  now  be  transported,  and  twenty  years 
ago  hanged  ;  Mark,  c.  ii.,  v.  23-26,  which  informs  us 
of  the  depredations  the  disciples  of  Christ  committed 
amongst  the  farmers'  corn,  as  they  were  passing  by 
the  way-side — (an  act  for  which  an  individual  would 
now  be  condemned  for  larceny)  but  which  Christ,  in 
opposition  to  the  dicta  of  the  learned  judges  of  this 
age,  pronounced  innocent  and  commendable.  Also 
Mark.  c.  v.,  v.  11,  12,  and  c.  xi.,  v.  12-21.  In  these 
four  latter  references,  Christ  is  represented  either  as 
taking  or  destroying  other  people's  property  himself, 
or  allowing  his  followers  to  do  it ;  which,  of  course, 
coming  from  him,  is  eminently  moral,  and  a  fine  pre- 
cedent to  the  light-fingered  gentry  of  this  Christian 
land  ! 

Paul,  who,  after  the  death  of  Christ,  was  the  main 
champion  of  Christianity,  unblushingly  declares  in 
his  2d  Lpistle  to  Cor.,  c.  xi.,  v.  8,  "I  robbed  other 
churches  to  do  y^e  service."  In  Rom.,  c.  iii.,  v.  7,  he 
exclaims,  "  For  if  the  truth  of  Cod  hath  more  abound- 
ed through  my  lie  unto  his  glory,  why  yet  am  I  also 


i»a*Ji*g«gitolP'  >-^-« --■'"^  ^".ti-ji.a.j.jiijgaj 


¥ 


188 


THE    MORALITY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


THE    MORALITY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


189 


judged  as  a  sinner?"  In  2d  Cor.,  c.  xii.,  v.  16,  he 
says,  "  Being  crafty,  I  caught  you  with  guile."  How 
honest !  How  honorable  !  In  Cial.,  c.  i.,  v.  9,  he  pro- 
pounds the  following  monstrous  doctrine  : — "  As  we 
said  before,  so  say  I  now  again,  if  any  men  preach 
any  other  doctrine  nnto  you,  than  that  ye  have  re- 
ceived, let  him  be  accursed.'^  Excellent  morality  ! — 
so  excellent,  that  were  it  generally  practised,  the 
world  would  become  a  scene  of  moral  strife  and 
enmity. 

Peter's  denial  of  his  Master,  Luke,  c.  xxii.,  v.  54- 
58,  is  of  a  like  character  to  Abraham's  and  Isaac's 
denial  of  their  wives;  and  were  f/teir  (example  fol- 
lowed, all  truth  and  sincerity  would  be  destroyed.  I 
shall  say  little  at  this  moment  of  Peter,  deliberately 
drawing  the  sword,  and  cutting  off  the  right  ear  of 
the  priest's  servant;  John,  c.  xviii.,  v.  10.  The  act 
is  so  flagrantly  cruel  and  unjust,  that  were  it  defend- 
ed for  a  moment,  no  one's  life  would  be  safe  in  a 
Christian  country.  Every  desperado  might  indulge 
in  his  atrocities  with  impunity.  Nor  need  I  enlarge 
on  the  blackguardism  of  Peter — his  ''  cursing  and 
swearins: "  recorded  in  Matt.,  c.  xxvi.,  v.  7L  Bias- 
phcmy  in  a  Christian  apostle  is  passed  over  in  silence. 

.John,  in  his  second  Epistle,  c.  i.,  v.  10,  gives  the 
following  truly  Christian  injunction  : — "If  there  come 
any  unto  you,  and  bring  not  this  doctrine,  receive 
him  not  into  your  house  ;  neither  bid  him  God  speed." 
Were  .lohn's  admonitions  strictly  obeyed,  the  world 
would  become  an  arena  of  the  most  relentless  intole- 
rance anrl  inhumanity.  All  the  most  delightful  ties 
which  bind  civilized  society,  hospitality,  courtcs}^  per- 
sonal respect,  vsocial  intercourse,  would  be  dissevered, 
and  man  would  be  left  to  grovel  in  bigotry  and  dog- 
matism. Yet  the  men  who  enunciate  such  doctrines, 
are  those  whom  we  arc  trained  to  admire,  revere,  an(l 
almost  deify.  How  infamous !  Were  we  to  take  the 
Bible  prodigies  as  our  models,  instead  of  our  advanc- 
ing in  toleration,  humanity,  and  enlightenment,  wo 


\ 


should  soon  retrograde  to  a  state  of  brutality  and  bar- 
barism. 

Those  names  upon  whoui  I  have  been  expatiating, 
are  the  "elite'-  of  the  Bible,  ilic  "literati,"'  the  ^'fa- 
vored few"  with  whom  the  Deity  would  alone  have 
auy  association. 

What  a  contrast  to  the  character  of  those  illustrious 
men  of  ancient  times,  who  knew  not  the  "  blessings  of 
the  Divine  Word  " —  to  our  Socrates,  Thales,  Zeno- 
phon,  Plato,  Zeno,  Epicurus,  Aristides,  Phocian,  Cice- 
ro, Pliny,  Seneca,  and  a  phalanx  of  other  wise  and 
good  men,  compared  with  whom  the  Scriptural  heroes 
shrivel  into  nothingness  !  O!  talk  not  to  me  of  the 
morality  of  the  Bible,  in  the  presence  of  such  glorious 


names 


I 


We  will,  therefore,  proceed  with  our  subject.  We 
have  still  a  great  task  to  perform,  and  little  time  left 
to  complete  it.  My  remarks  will,  necessarily,  be  very 
summary.  I  hasten  to  refer  you  to  passages  which 
incite  to  the  commission  of  various  crimes. 

Driinkenness.  In  .Jeremiah,  c.  xxv.,  v.  27,  it  says, 
"  Therefore,  thou  shalt  say  unto  them,  drink  ye,  and 
be  drunken,  and  spnc,  and  fall  down,  and  rise  no  inore, 
because  of  the  sword  which  I  will  send  amongst  you." 
In  Dent.,  c.  xiv.,  v.  26,  we  are  presented  with  a  speci- 
men of  latitudhiarianism,  highly  palatable  to  an  anti- 
teetotaller — "  And  thou  shalt  bestow  that  money  for 
whatsoever  thy  soul  lustcth  after,  for  oxen,  or  for 
sheep,  or  for  wine,  or  for  strong  drink,  or  whatsover 
thy  soul  desire th." 

Robbery.  See  the  case  of  Paul,  as  previously  quoted ; 
also,  Exod.,  c.  iii.,  v.  21,  22,  where  the  Lord  states, 
"And  1  will  give  this  people  favor  in  the  sight  of  the 
.Egyptians  :  and  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that,  when  you 
go  away,  ye  shall  not  go  empty.  But  every  woman 
shall  borrow  of  her  neighbor,  and  of  her  that  sojourn- 
eth  iu  her  house,  jewels  of  silver,  and  jewels  of  gold, 
and  raiment ;  and  ye  shall  put  them  upon  your  sons, 
and  upon    your   daughters,   and    yc  shall    sfoil    the 


♦ 


190 


THE    MORALITY    OF    Tilt;    ;>I13LE, 


THE    MORALITY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


191 


Kgyptians."  What  a  virtuous  scene  society  would 
bcconie  if  tliat  example  was  Ibllowed  I  If  every  Eu- 
glislunau  and  Irishuiaii  in  the  "  laud  o' cakes,"  on 
leaving  the  country,  were  to  adopt  tins  practice,  the 
*'cannie  Scotchman"  would  both  look  and  feel  most 
"unutterable  things."  For  other  examples,  sec  I  Cor., 
c.  X.,  V.  21. 

Vagabondism.  In  Psalms,  cix.,  v.  10,  it  says,  "  liCt 
liis  children  be  coutiiuially  vagabonds,  and  beg;"  in- 
dividuals, wlio,  in  this  Christian  country,  are  now 
treated  as  criminals. 

Bigamy.  See  Dent.,  c.  xxi.,  v.  15 — 17.  The  pas- 
sage is  not  fit  to  quote.  See,  also,  the  "  illustrious  ' 
instance  of  Solomon,  1  Kings,  c.  xi.,  v.  3.  A  inoreun- 
bhishing  case  of  bigamy  cannot  be  cited  than  this  ad- 
mired Bible-hero.  Seven  hundred  wives !  But  he 
had  three  hundred  concubines  to  boot !  And  this  is 
the  '•  wisest  man "  of  whom  the  Bible-readers  can 
boast.     I  admire  their  taste.'  " 

Prostitution.  See  llosea,  c.  i.,  v.  2,  and  Judges, 
c.  xxi.,  V.  12.  These  passages  are  only  fit  for  a 
(yhirstiau  to  quote.  I  will  read  you,  however,  the 
following  example  from  Xumb.,  c.  xxi.,  v.  17,  18: — 
*'I\ow,  therefore,  (says  Moses)  kill  every  male  among 
the  little  ones,  and  kill  every  woman  that  hath  known 
man  by  lying  with  him.  But  all  the  women  children, 
that  have  not  known  a  man,  by  lying  with  him,  keep 
alive  for  yourselves  !  "     What  generous  prudence  ! 

Adultery.  This  crime  the  "  LiOrd  "  threatened  the 
Babylonians  their  wives  should  sutfer.  '•  Their  chil- 
dren (says  he,  in  Isaiah,  c.  xiii.,  v.  10,)  shall  be  dash- 
ed to  pieces,  their  houses  shall  be  spoiled,  and  their 
icives  lavished.'^  What  a  threat !  See  also  Matt.,  c. 
i.j  v.  18. 

I  find  some  curious  doctrines  upon  the  subject  of 
Marriage^  which  I  will  here  introduce.  I  commend 
them  to  the  consideration  of  Dr.  Ward  law.  1  advise 
him  to  issue  an  appendix  to  his  new  work  on  Prosti- 
tution, and  amongst  writings  which  he  mentions  as 


inculcating  lax  notions  upon  this  subject,  to  include. 
"  the  Holy  Bible."  I  will  refer  you  in  the  first  place 
to  Deut.,  c.  xxi.,  v.  10-14.  The  language  is  too  ob- 
jectionable to  quote.  I  may  state  that  if  we  were  to 
practice  the  license  therein  granted,  a  man  might 
change  his  wife  every  month.  1  will  next  refer  you 
to  Deut.,  c.  xxiv.,  v.  1,  2.  We  are  there  told  that: 
"When  a  man  hath  taken  a  wife,  and  married  her, 
and  it  come  to  pass  that  she  find  no  favor  in  his  eyes, 
because  he  hath  found  some  uncleanness  in  her;  then 
let  him  (the  man  himself)  write  her  a  bill  of  divorce- 
ment, and  give  it  into  her  hand,  and  send  her  out  of 
his  house:  and  when  she  hath  departed  out  of  his 
liouse,  she  may  go  and  be  another  man's  wife!" 
This  extract  needs  no  comment. 

Degradation  and  Enslacement  of  Women.  The  Bi- 
ble, and  more  especially  the  NeiC  Testament^  abounds 
in  passages  in  contempt  of  the  gentler  sex.  Paul 
says,  in  1  Tim.,  c.  ii.,  v.  11,  "Let  the  women  learii 
in  silence  with  all  subjection  ;'^  and  in  1  Cor.,  c.  xiv., 
V.  34,  35,  he  exclaims,  "Let  your  women  keep  si- 
lence in  the  churches:  for  it  is  not  })crmitted  unto 
tJieni  to  speak ;  but  they  are  coinnianded  to  be  under 
obedience^  as  akso  saitli  the  lau\  And  if  they  will 
learn  anything,  let  them  ask  their  husbands  at  home, 
for  it  is  a  shame  for  women  to  speak  in  the  church." 
See  also  1  Tim.  c,  ii.,  v.  12;  and  Lph.,  c.  v.,  v.  22,  23. 

Slffvery  and  t//e  Slave  Trade.  In  support  of  that 
monstrous  system,  I  could  quote  many  passages  from 
this  book.  In  Lev.,  c.  xxv.,  v.  44-46,  I  read,  "  Both 
thy  bondmen  and  thy  bondmaids,  which  thou  shall 
have,  shall  be  of  the  heathen  that  are  round  about 
you,  of  them  shall  ye  buy  bondmen  and  bondmaids. 
Moreover,  of  the  cliildren  of  the  strangers  that  do 
sojourn  among  you,  of  them  shall  ye  ^?/y,  and  of  their 
families  that  are  with  you,  which  they  begat  in  your 
land,  and  they  shall  be  your  possession.  And  ye  shall 
take  them  as  an  inheritance  for  your  children  after 
you-  to  inherit  them   for  a  possessioUj  they  sliall  be 


•I 


192 


THE    MORALITY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


your  bondmen  forever f'^  What  an  iniquitous  traffic 
in  liuman  life !  See  also  Joshua,  c.  ix.,  v.  21,  and 
Joel.  c.  iii..  V.  8,  where  the  "Lord"  exclaims,  "And 
1  will  sell  your  sons  and  your  daughters^  into  the 
hand  of  the  children  of  Judah,  and  they  shall  sell 
\\w\\\  to  tlie  Sabcans  to  a  people  afar  otF;  for  the 
li()i;i)  hath  spoken  it."  The  American  parsons  may 
well  say  that  the  Bible  sanctions  slavery! 

Alio/ij^ij  for  tyranny  and  oppression,  hi  Heb.,  c. 
xin.,  V.  ir,  we  are  told,  ex})licitly,  to  "obey  them 
t!iat  ride  over  yon,  and  snbniit  yourselves;  "  and  in 
J  looter,  c.  ii.,  v.  13,  we  are  commanded  to  ''^ Sitbniit 
yourselves  to  ecery  ordiiKuice  of  man  for  the  Lord's 
sahy  A  most  convenient  doctrine  to  all  tyrants 
and  nsnrpers!  The  same  audacious  priest  thus  com- 
mands us  m  V.  18,  "Servants,  be  subject  to  your 
masters,  with  all  fear^  not  only  to  the  irood  and  the 
i,'<'ntle,  but  to  the  froward  !  "  I>ut  these  are  modest, 
conipared  with  the  following  language  of  Paul:  "  Let 
every  soul  he  subject  unto  the  higher  powers,  for 
there  is  no  p^oirer  but  of  God — the  powers  that  be  are 
ordained  of  (i'd;  whosoever,  therefore,  resisteth  the 
power,  resistelh  the  ordinance  of  (Jod,  and  they  that 
resist  shall  rcc<Mve  dattination !  ^^  Rom.,  c.  xiii.,  v. 
1-3.  What  a  doctrine !  How  like  the  Hible  !  For 
other  passages,  see  Titus,  c.  li.,  v.  9,  and  llosea,  c. 
xii.,  V.  7. 

Disconragement  of  i^iriuc.  "  Be  not  righteous  over- 
much, neither  make  thyself  over  wise,  why  shouldst 
thou  destroy  thyself?"  Eccles.,  c.  vii.,  v.  16.  In 
Rev.,  c.  xxii.,  v.  11,  it  is  stated,  "  He  that  is  unjust 
let  him  be  unjust  still,  and  he  that  is  filthy  let  him  be 
filthy  still."  That  is  the  doctrine  of  finality  with  a 
V(!ngeaiice. 

Enconragement  of  igiioi^ance  and  error.  Paul,  in 
1  Cor.,  c.  xiv.,  V.  38,  writes,  "  But  if  any  man  be  ig- 
norant, let  him  be  ignorant."  And  in  c.  i.,  v.  27,  he 
says,  "  But  God  hath  chosen  the  foolish  things  of  the 
world  to  confound   the  ivisc.^^     In   Isa.,  c.  vi.,  v.  10, 


THE    MORALITY   OF    THE    BIBLE. 


193 


it  is  ordered,  "  Make  the  heart  of  this  people  fat, 
and  make  their  ears  heavy,  and  shut  their  eyes,  lest 
they  see  with  their  eyes,  and  hear  with  their  ears, 
and  understand  with  their  heart,  and  convert,  and 
be  healed."     See  also  c.  Ixiii.,  v.  17;   and  Exod.,   c. 

xix.,  V.  12,  13. 

Enconras'cment  to  Lying-  and  Falsehood.  In  2 
Thess.  c.  il,  v.  11,  we  are  told,  "And  for  this  cause, 
God  shall  send  them  strong  delusions,  that  they  should 
believe  a  lie."  And  in  2d  Chron.,  c.  xviii.,  v.  21,  the 
Lord  is  represented  as  saying,  "  1  will  go  out  and  be 
a  lying  spirit  in  the  mouth  of  all  his  prophets."  Ezek., 
c.  XX.,  V.  25,  informs  us  that  the  Lord  set  a  very  good 
example  to  the  world,  for  we  are  told  that  he  "gave 
them  statutes  that  were  not  good,  and  judgments 
whereby  they  should  not  live."  See,  likewise,  Gen., 
c.  xxvii.,  V.  19 ;  c.  xxviii.,  v.  13—15  ;  c.  xxvi,  v.  7—12  ; 
Jer.,  c.  XX.,  V.  17 ;  and  Ezek.,  xiv.,  v.  9. 

Enconragenient  to  Hypocrisy,  and  an  exquisite  spe- 
cimen of  morality  it  is.  In  1  Sam.,  c.  xvi.,  v.  1,  2,  we 
read,  "And  the  Lord  said  unto  Samuel,  How  long 
wilt  thou  mourn  for  Saul,  seeing  I  have  rejected  him 
from  reigning  over  Israel '?  Fill  thine  horn  with  oil, 
and  go.  1  will  send  thee  to  Jesse,  the  Bethlemite,  for 
I  have  provided  me  a  king  from  among  his  sons.  And 
Samuel  said,  how  can  1  go?  If  Saul  hear  me,  he  will 
kill  me.  And  the  Lord  said,  take  an  heifer  with  thee, 
and  say,  I  am  come  to  sacrifice  to  the  Lord." 

Breach  of  Faith.  In  Num.,  c.  xiv.,  v.  30—34,  the 
Lord  observes,  "  Doubtless,  ye  shall  not  come  into  the 
land,  concerning  which  /  swore  to  make  yon  dwell 
therein,  save  Caleb,  the  son  of  Jephannah,  and  Joshua, 
the  son  of  Nun,  after  the  number  of  the  days,  in  which 
ye  searched  the  land,  and  forty  days,  each  day  for  a 
year,  shall  be  your  iniquities,  even  forty  years,  and  ye 
shall  know  my  breach  of  promise  !  ! '[  What  a  glori- 
ous specimen  of  honesty  and  good  faith  ! 

Primogeniture.  This  most  unjust  and  pernicious 
law  is  strictly  enforced,  in  Deut.,  c.  xxi.,  v.  17,  "But 

17 


191 


THE    MORALITY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


he  sliiill  ack  now  lodge  the  son  of  the  liatod  for  tlio  first- 
born, by  givnig  him  a  double  portion  of  all  that  he 
haih,  for  he  is  the  beginning  o(  his  strength,  the  right 
of  the  first-born  is  his."  For  other  instanees,  see  (ien., 
c.  x\^i.,  V.  14;  I  Sam.,  c.  vi.,  v.  1 — 21 ;  2  Sum.,  c.  xxi., 
V.  1^ — 14;  and  (*en.,  c.  iv.,  v.  15. 

Persecution.  If  tliere  be  one  thing  more  nnjnst  or 
more  hnuujral  than  another,  it  is  persecuting  a  i'cilow 
being,  because  he  may  diil'er  with  you  in  opinion.  To 
invade  the  precincts  of  conscience,  is  a  most  brutal 
act,  and  yet  Jiow  often  is  it  recommend(*d  in  the  Hiblc  ! 
In  Deut,  c.  xiii.,  v.  6 — 9,  one  of  the  most  diabolical 
commands  ever  given,  is  in  reference  to  persecution 
for  opimon.  We  are  told,  "  If  thy  brother,  the  son  of 
thy  mother,  or  thy  son,  or  thy  daughter,  or  the  wife 
of  tliy  bosom,  or  thy  friend,  which  is  as  thine  own 
soni,  entice  thee,  secretly,  saying,  Let  us  go  and  serve 
other  gods,  which  thou  hast  not  known,  thou  nor  thy 
father.  Thou  shall  not  consent  unto  him,  nor  hearken 
unto  him,  neither  aludt  thine  eye  pilij  hiin^  neither 
shalt  thou  spare,  neither  shalt  thou  conceal  him,  but 
thou  shalt  Ku.L  //////,  thine  hand  shall  be  first  upon 
liini  to  ])ut  hhn  to  death,  and  afterwards  the  hand  of 
all  the  people  ! !  !  *'  Here  we  are  actually  commanded 
to  MUiiDKK  our  own  sons,  irires,  and  daughters,  if  they 
\vill  not  believe  as  we  believe  !  1  tremble  with  horror. 
Christians  !  can  you  read  such  a  passage,  and  not 
blush  ]  Josh.,  c.  xxiv.,  v.  20,  protests,  that  if  the  Is- 
raelites dared  to  worship  other  gods  than  were  pro- 
posed to  them,  the  Lord  would  "  consume'^  them  !  C) ! 
what  ''  liberty  of  conscience,"  what  "  right  of  private 
judgment !  "  3Iany  horrible  passages,  highly  charac- 
teristic, might  be  quoted  from  Deut.,  c.  xvii.,  v.  2.; 
Exod.,  c.  xxxii.,  v.  10;  2Chron.,  c.  xxviii.,  v.  G  ;  c.  xv., 
V.  13;  Deut.,  c.  xiii.,  v.  6 — 13;  2  Kings,  c.  x.,  v.  29; 
and  Deut.,  c.  xvii.,  v.  12.  In  the  New  Testament, 
there  are  many  passages,  some  of  which  1  have  read 
when  speaking  of  Christ,  Paul,  and  John,  as  given  in 
Luke,  c.  xix.j  v.  27;    Gal.,  c.  i.,  v.  9;  and  2  John,  c. 


THE    MORALITY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


195 


i.,  V.  10.  Roe,  also,  Mark,  c.  xvi.,  v.  10:  1  (or.,  c. 
xvi.,  V.  22  ;  Titus,  c.  iii.,  v.  10  ;  Acts,  c.  xiii!,  v.  S— 1 1  ; 
Cal.,  c.  v.,  V.  J2;  Matt.,  c.  xii.,  v.  30:  Acts,  c.  iii.,  v. 
23;  and  Luke,  xiv.,  v.  23.     The   lollowing  passages, 

Matthew,  c.  x.,  v.  11,  is  the  essence  of  intolerance"; 

*'And  whosoever,"  says  Christ,  '-shall  not  receive 
yon,  nor  hear  your  words,  when  ye  depart  out  of  that 
house  or  city,  shake  olf  the  dust  of  your  feet.  Verily, 
I  say  unto  you,  it  shnll  be  more  tolerable  for  the  land 
of  Hodoni  and  Comorrah  in  the  day  of  judLnnent,  than 
for  that  city  !  "  How  horrihic  !  In  Acts,  c.  iii.,  v.  23, 
we  arc  told,  "  and  it  shall  come  to  j)ass,  tliat  every 
soul  which  shall  not  liear  that  prophet,  shall  be  de- 
stroyed from  among  the  people."  What  Christian 
charity ! 

Suiride  recommended.  In  Pro  v.,  c.  xxiii.,  v.  1.  2, 
we  read,  '•  When  thou  sittest  to  eat  with  a  rnler,  con- 
sider diligently  wfiat  is  before  tlice.  And pvt  a  knife 
to  thy  throat,  \{\\\o\\  be  a  man  given  to  aj)petite." 

Assassination  countenanced.  In  Judges,  c.  iii.,  v.  15 
—23,  a  most  revolting  story  is  told  of  the  assassina- 
tion of  Kglon,  king  of  .Aloab,  by  Lhnd,  the  deliverer 
uf  the  Israelites;  and  this  "deliverer"  we  are  inform- 
ed, was  selected  and  appointed  by  the  '•  Lord  "  liim- 
self.  1  forbear  quoting  the  passage.  In  c.  iv.,  v.  21, 
a  similar  crime  is  committed  by  the  woman,  Jael' 
upon  Sisera,  the  captain  of  the  army  of  the  king  of 
( 'anaan.  W  bile  asleep,  says  the  story,  she  "  took  a 
nail  of  the  tent,  and  took  a  hammer  in  her  hand,  and 
went  softly  unto  him,  and  smote  the  nail  hito  his  tem- 
ples, and  fastened  it  into  the  ground  !  " 

After  this,  we  are  assured  "the  land  of  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  ''  prospered  ! " 

Murder.  This  is  the  most  hcinons  of  crimes,  but 
nevertheless  it  is  defended  in  the  Bible.  Listen,  I  en- 
treat yon,  to  the  lollowing  astounding  passai^e,  2 
Kings,  c.  X.,  V.  11—30:  ''So  Jehu  slew  all  that  re- 
mained of  the  house  of  Ahab,  in  Jezreel,  and  all  his 
great  men  and  liis  kinsfolks,  and  his  priests,  until   ho 


i 


4 


<l 


i\ 


I 


196 


THE   MORALITY   OF    THE    BIBLE. 


left  him  none  remaining.  And  the  Lord  said  unto 
Jehu,  because  tliou  hast  done  well  in  executmg  that 
Avhich  is  riglit  in  mine  eyes,  and  hast  done  unto  the 
house  of  Ahab,  accordh.g  to  all  that  was  in  mine 
heart,  thy  children  of  the  fourth  generation  sha  I  sit 
on  the  throne  of  Israel !  "  A  murderer  made  a  king, 
because  he  was  a  murderer— because  such  an  act  was 
"right."  O  !  could  crime  be  more  aggravated,  or  de- 
fended more  unblushingly  ?  Aye,  even  so  lorin  Jer., 
c  xlviii.,  V.  10,  a  man  is  not  merely  rewarded  lor  com- 
mitting murder,  as  in  the  above  instance,  but  he  is 
actuallv  cursed  if  he  will  not  do  it.  "  Cursed  be  he,' 
says  the  passage,  "  that  kcepeth  back  his  sword  Irom 
blood."     O  !  wbat  humanity  !   what  morality  ! 

1  will  here  draw  a  veil  over  this  frightful  picture. 
To  expose  it  further,  would  be  painful  both  to  you 
and  to  me.  Unpleasant,  indeed,  has  been  my  task 
on  this  occasion.  iXevcr  was  it  my  misfortune  to 
wade  through  such  a  mass  of  crime,  obscenity,  and 
butchery  as  I  was  constrained  to  do  m  compiling 
this  address.  To  call  a  book  divine,  which  contains 
such  atrocities,  and  which  countenances  and  enconr- 
an-cs  them  too,  is  to  alford  an  apology  for  all  that  is 
iui(iuitous,  cruel,  and  demoralizing,  and,  were  its  in- 
iuiictions  strictly  practised,  the  world  would  become 
obscured  in  moral  and  intellectual  darkness  —  the 
<^lorious  tide  of  human  amelioration  would  be  cor- 
rupted, and  everything  that  was  virtuous   and  good 

would  wither  and  die  !  ,    .       ,  t 

To  confirm  the  statements  made  in  the  preceding 
lecture,  I  beg  to  supply  the  reader  with  a  few  speci- 
mens of  the  oljscenit'ies  of  the  Bible.  \  or  more  par- 
ticulars, see  "The  Holy  Scriptures  Analysed,  pre- 
viously referred  to.  ^ 
"Mv  wounds  stink,  and  are  corrupt,  because  ot 
my  foolishness.  For  my  loins  are  filled  with  a  loath- 
some disease,  and  there  is  no  soundness  in  my  flesh. 
My  lovers  and  my  friends,  stand  aloof  from  my  sore, 


THE    MORALITY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


197 


and  my  kinsmen  stand  afar  off."  So  says  the  virtu- 
ous David,  Psalms,  c.  xxxviii.,  v.  5-11. 

"  Thou  slialt  drink  also  Avater  by  measure,  the 
sixth  part  of  an  Inn;  from  time  to  time  thou  shalt 
drink.  And  thou  shalt  eat  it  as  barley  cakes,  and 
thou  shalt  bake  it  with  dung  that  conieth  out  of  man 
in  their  sight,"  Ezek,  c.  iv.,  v.  11. 

"  So  they  spread  Absalom  a  tent  upon  the  top  of 
tlie  house,  and  Absalom  went  in  unto  his  father's 
concubine   in   the   sight   of  all   Israel,"   2   Sam.,    c. 


XVI.,  V.  22. 


"And  Judah  said  unto  Onan,  Go  in  unto  iby 
brother's  wife,  and  raise  up  seed  to  thy  brother. 
And  Onan  knew  that  the  seed  should  not  be  his, 
and  it  came  to  pass,  when  he  went  in  unto  his  broth- 
er's wife  that  he  spilled  it  on  the  ground,  lest  that  he 
sliould  give  seed  unto  his  brother,"  (ien.,  c.  xxxviii., 
V.  9.  "He  moveth  his  tail  like  a  cedar,  the  sinews 
of  his  stones  are  wrapped  together,  Job.,  c.  xl.,  v.  17. 
"But  llahshaketh  said  unto  them,  hath  my  master 
sent  me  to  thy  master  and  to  thee,  to  speak  these 
words;  hath  he  not  sent  me  to  the  men  which  sit  on 
the  wall,  that  they  may  eat  their  own  ***=^  and 
drink  their  own  **=**  ?  "  2  Kings,  c.  xviii.,  v.  27. 

"  We  have  been  with  child,  we  have  been  in  pain, 
we  have,  as  it  were,   brought  forth  wind,"   Isa.,   c. 

xxvi.,  V.  18. 

"And  Ehud  put  forth  his  riglit  hand,  and  took 
the  dagger  from  his  right  side,  and  thrust  it  into  his 
belly,  and  die  haft  also  went  after  the  blade  and  the 
fat  closed  upon  die  blade,  so  diat  he  could  not  draw 
the  dagger  out  of  his  belly,  and  die  dirt  came  out," 
Judges,  c.  iii.j  v.  21,  22. 

"  He  that  is  wounded  in  the  stones,  or  hadi  his 
privy  member  cut  off,  shall  not  enter  into  the  con- 
gregation of  the  Eord,"  Ueut,  c.  xxiii.,  v.  1. 

"And  thou  shalt  have  a  paddle  upon  thy  weapon, 
and  it  shall  be  when  thou  wilt  ease   diyself,  diou 

17* 


% 


198 


THE    MORALITY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


shall  dig,  and  cover  that  which  cometh  from  thee," 
Dent.,  c.  xxiii.,  v.  13. 

"Then  shall  his  brother's  wife  come  unto  him,  m 
the  presence  of  the  elders,  and  loose  his  shoes  from  ofl' 
his  feet,  and  spit  in  his  face,"  Dent.,  c.  xxv.,  v.  9. 

"Then  shall  the  father  of  the  damsel,  and  her 
mother,  take  and  bring  forth  the  token  of  the  dam- 
sel's virginity,  unto  the  elders  of  the  city  in  the  gate," 
Deut,  c.  xxii.,  v.  15. 

"  And  if  any  man's  seed  of  copulation  go  out  from 
him,  then  lie  shall  wash  all  his  llesh  in  water,  and 
be  unclean  until  the  even,"   Lev.,  c.  xv.  v.  16. 

"  Neither  shall  he  go  into  any  dead  body,  nor  de- 
file himself  for  his  father  or  lor  his  mother,"   Lev.,  c. 


xxi.,  V.  11. 


Can  such  language  (and  it  is  only  a  sample,)  be 
written  by  inspiration  of  («od?  It  is  truly  monstrous 
that  the  sons  and  daughters  of  a  civilized  country 
shoidd  be  trained  to  revere  a  book  in  which  such 
bcastiaiities  are  found.  AV  lien  will  the  Christian  learn 
good-breeding,  if  not  good  sense  I 


i 


LECTURE  ELEVENTH. 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE. 


Ffuends — 

I  ANNOUNCED  tliat  tliis  cvcning  we  should  consider 
the  P/tUosophy  of  the  Bible.  I  candidly  acknowl- 
edge I  apply  the  term  philosophy,  in  relation  to  this 
book,  derisively.     I  cannot  use  it  otherwise. 

To  talk  of  the  Philosophy  of  the  Bible,  in  a  serious 
tone,  and  in  earnest,  would  be  truly  comical. 

Tlie  Bible  is  a  book  of  mysteries,  incongruities, 
obscenities,  absurdities,  and  atrocities,  but  not  of 
science  and  philosophy.  For  its  bulk  (and,  if  that 
be  an  argument  in  favor  of  its  divinity,  it  is  rather  a 
solid  one,)  there  is  no  book  extant  which  has  less  to 
do  with  the  latter  kind  of  questions.  Recording  and 
detailing  all  degrees  of  crimes  and  vices — butcheries 
and  machinations — intrigues  and  impostures — is  the 
forte  of  the  Bible.  In  that  it  quite  excels ;  but  when 
it  attempts  the  scientific,  the  philosophic,  or  the  ra- 
tional, it  seems  like  a  fish  out  of  water — quite  away 
from  its  natural  element.  Some  theologians  in  the 
plenitude  of  their  simplicity  have  ventured  to  boast 
of  the  learning  of  the  Bible,  and  pompously  pro- 
nounced it  to  be  the  most  "learned"  book  in  the 
world.  If  it  be,  I  apprehend  it  is  only  in  the  sense 
in  which  some  of  our  ])rofessors  are  learned — "learn- 
edly ignorant.*"  However,  if  it  can  justly  claim  so 
distinguished  an  appellation,  then  the  works  of  Jack 


200 


THE    PHILOSOPHY   OF    THE    BIBLE. 


and  the  Giant  Killer,  Tom  Thumb,  Mother  Bunch, 
The  Seven  Champions  of .  Christendom,  Cinderella 
and  the  Glass  Slipper,  Baron  Munchausen,  Little  Red 
Riding  Hood,  Babes  in  the  Woods,  and  other  nursery- 
stories,  may  take  their  place  among  the  scientific  pro- 
ductions of  the  age,  and  the  writings  of  a  Lawrence, 
an  Arago,  and  a  Herschell  may  be  put  upon  the  shelf 
as  fit  only  to  amuse  infants;  for  certainly,  the  stories 
of  Jacob's  Ladder,  Baalam  and  his  Ass,  Joshua  and 
the  Sun,  Elijah  and  his  Journey  to  Heaven,  Lot's 
Wife  and  the  Pillar  of  Salt,  Aaron  and  his  Rod, 
Samson  and  his  Jaw-bone  of  an  Ass,  David  and  his 
Achievements  upon  the  "  light  fantastic  toe,"  and 
Jonah  and  the  Fish,  are  much  more  learned  pro- 
ductions than  any  detailed  in  the  works  here  enume- 
rated, and  exhibit,  I  doubt  not,  a  more  intimate  ac- 
quaintance with  the  scientific  and  the  philosophical ! 

Of  course,  the  Bible  being  the  most  learned  book  in 
our  literature,  those  individuals,  who  are  alleged  to 
have  written  it,  must  have  been  very  learned  men. 
There  is  no  doubt  of  it.  Moses,  for  instance,  who  is 
the  first  erudite  author  of  the  Bible,  was  such  a  very 
enlightened  man  that  he  thought  nothing  of  com- 
manding a  few  thousands  of  men,  women,  and  chil- 
dren to  be  massacred  in  cold  blood;  and,  so  modest 
was  he  in  his  enlightenment,  that  he  even  conde- 
scended to  murder  a  fellow  being  with  his  own  hand. 
Joshua,  the  next  writer  in  the  Bible,  was  a  man 
of  such  extraordinary  attainments,  especially  in  the 
science  of  astronomy^  that  he  even  commanded  the 
sun  to  stand  still,  when  it  did  stand  still.  Samuel, 
another  inspired  author,  was  a  man  of  such  science, 
more  particularly  in  practical  anatomy^  that  we  are 
told  he  "  hewed  Agag  to  pieces  before  the  Lord  in 
Gilgal,"  in  the  most  skilful  style.  David,  another 
Bible  author,  so  grave  and  rigid  a  philosopher  was 
he,  that  we  read  of  his  '•  dancing  before  the  Lord 
with  all  his  might."  Solomon's  wisdom  was  so 
transcendental,  that  we  are  informed,  he  maintained 


THE   PHILOSOPHY   OF   THE  BIBLE. 


201 


a  retinue  of  seven  hundred  wives  and  three  hundred 
concubines,  and  at  last,  declared,  as  a  proof  of  the 
advantages  of  philosophy^  that  all  was  "  vanity." 
Daniel,  another  very  distinguished  writer,  was  so  well 
acquainted  with  natural  history^  that  he  could  live 
among  lions,  with  as  much  impunity,  as  we  do 
among  butterflies.  Jonah,  who  was  also  an  inspired 
penman,  and  a  prophet  to  boot,  was  so  thoroughly 
familiar  with  the  rationale  of  animal  physiology^  that 
he  could  get  down  a  fish's  throat,  with  as  much  ease 
and  safety,  as  an  animacule  would  down  that  of 
our  own.  Paul,  the  leading  author  of  the  doctrinal 
portion  of  the  New  Testament,  had  such  a  great 
thirst  for  knowledge,  that  he  exclaims,  ''if  a  man  be 
ignorant,  let  him  be  ignorant,"  and  so  intense  an 
anxiety  for  the  progress  of  science  and  philosophy 
generally,  that  he  wisely  remarks,  "Beware,  lest  any 
man  spoil  you  through  philosophy.'''^ 

There  is  no  question  all  these  eminent  authors  are 
very  "learned"  men,  and  great  promoters  of  the 
"  arts  and  sciences."  The  world  is  highly  indebted 
to  them  in  that  respect ! 

But,  my  friends,  lest  any  one  may  imagine  that  I 
intend  on  this  occasion  to  indulge  merely  in  sarcastic 
ridicule,  or  idle  banter,  we  will  endeavor  to  be  some- 
what serious  upon  this  subject.  We  will  ask,  then, 
where  is  the  learning  of  the  Bible  7  Vs  here  tlie  use- 
ful scientific  principles  it  has  elaborated  and  estab- 
lished ?  Where  the  great  truths  of  philosophy,  which 
it  may  have  developed  and  demonstrated  ]  What 
little,  indeed,  is  advanced  upon  these  questions,  in- 
volves errors  and  absurdities,  which  modern  science 
has  completely  exploded.  I  am  not  aware  that  there 
is  any  other  volume  in  existence,  in  which  more 
blunders  could  be  detected  than  in  the  Bible,  and  to 
designate  its  authors  inspired  and  infallible^  is  to  re- 
verse our  ideas  of  truth  and  falsehood,  fallibility  and 
infallibility.  It  shall  be  our  province  on  the  present 
occasion  to  expose  a  few  of  these  blunders,  and   to 


iii 


i 


902 


THE    PHILOSOPHY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


show  how  Utterly  unworthy  is  the  Bible  of  being 
esteemed  a  learned  or  philosophical  production. 

We  will  "begin  with  the  beginning'' — The  Crea- 
tion of  the  World. 

Christians  maintain  that  according  to  the  Philoso- 
phy of  the  Bible,  this  event  transpired  only  some 
6()00  years  ago.  There  are,  however,  a  multitude  of 
circumstances,  which  tend  to  invalidate  that  position. 
I  cannot  pretend,  in  one  brief  address,  to  comment 
upon  them  all.  I  shall  be  under  the  necessity  of 
cursorily  reviewing  a  few  only  of  the  more  remarka- 
ble. First,  then,  of  the  records  of  other  nations. 
The  Old  Testament,  you  are  aware,  is  put  forth  as 
the  record  of  the  Jetas^  and  it  is  upon  this  record, 
that  the  Christian  world  base  their  cosmogony.  Now, 
if  the  records  of  one  nation  are  competent  authority 
upon  the  (juestion  at  issue,  the  records  of  another  are 
equally  legitimate.  We  have  just  as  much  right  to 
believe  them  as  the  Jews:  nay,  more,  for  the  Jews 
were  the  most  ignorant  and  barbarous  of  all  the  great 
nations  of  antitputy,  and,  therefore,  the  least  likely 
to  be  familiar  with  the  subject  before  us.  The  Chi- 
nese, than  whom  few  of  the  ancient  empires  of  the 
world  were  more  enlightened  or  civilized,  have  a 
collection  of  books,  consisting  of  150  volumes,  called 
the  "  Great  Annals,"  which  pretend  to  give  a  history 
from  the  creation  of  the  world,  comprising  a  period 
of  above  49,000  years,  after  which  thirty-five  im- 
perial families  reigned  successively  for  ages^  without 
any  interruption.  Some  writers  have  ventured  to 
doubt  the  authenticity  of  these  productions,  but  upon 
much  less  reasonable  ground  than  we  may  doubt  the 
authenticity  of  the  Jewish  annals.  Certain  we  are, 
that  the  Chinese  invented  a  cycle  or  computation  of 
time  which  begins  two  thousand  six  hundred  years 
before  ours. 

Sir  R.  Phillips  informs  us,  in  his  ''  Million  of 
Facts,"  that  the  Hindoo  priesthood  (and  their  testi- 
mony is  as  good  as  the  Jewish  priesthajd,)  "  claims 


THE  PHILOSOPHY   OF   THE   BIBLE. 


203 


!' 


a  theological  time  of  nearly  tico  thousand  millions 
of  years  since  the  beginning,  and  they  state  that 
Brahma — the  Hindoo  God — was  seventeen  millions 
of  years  creating^  He  further  remarks,  "The  Hin- 
doos begin  the  creation  as  a  mere  astronoinical  epoch, 
when  all  the  planets  were  in  Aries,  or  nearly  two 
millions  of  years  since,  and,  taking  in  the  nodes  and 
apsides,  they  extend  it  to  four  thousand  three  hun- 
dred and  twenty  millions^  which  they  call  a  Calplia, 
or  day  of  Brahma." 
.  Pomponius  Mela,  the  great  Egyptian  historian,  in- 
forms us  that  tlie  Egyptians  in  their  annals,  reckoned 
three  hundred  and  thirty  kings  extending  through 
a  period  of  thirteen  thousand  years,  and  Herodotus 
gives  a  statement  of  the  Egyptians,  which  carries 
the  antiquity  of  the  world  still  further.  Herodotus 
states  that  the  reign  of  their  kings  extended  through 
a  period  of  seventeen  thousand  years.  Sir  R.  Phil- 
lips observes  that  "  the  Egyptians  reckoned  fourteen 
thousand  years  to  the  age  of  their  original  Vulcan, 
and  ten  thousand  years  before  Menas  and  Sethen." 
Sir  Richard,  indeed,  expressly  declares,  that  "  the 
Chinese,  Japanese,  Hindoos  and  Chaldeans  claim  an 
infinite  antiquity."  So  also  did  the  Greek  schools 
more  than  two  thousand  five  hundred  years  ago. 
Plato,  who  wrote  tivo  thousand  two  hundred  years 
since,  states  that  the  great  island  of  Atalantis,  filled 
with  cities,  &>c.,  was  absorbed  by  the  ocean  nine 
thousand  years  before  his  time.  Calisthcnes,  a  Gre- 
cian philosopher  of  high  renown,  says  he  was  told 
by  Berosus,  the  historian  of  Babylon,  who  was  in 
that  city  when  Alexander  visited  it,  that  four  hun- 
dred and  tivo  thousand  years  before  his  time  "  the  axis 
of  the  earth  was  parallel  to  the  plane  of  the  ecliptic." 
But,  we  will  take  our  stand  on  higher  ground  than 
records  and  traditions.  We  will  base  our  objections 
to  the  Bible  cosmogony,  upon  something  more  palpa- 
ble and  demonstrable  than  the  pretensions  of  priests. 
We  will  take  our  arguments  from  the  incontestable 
evidences  of  science. 


204 


THE    PHILOSOPHY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


The  discoveries  effected  during  this  last  century  in 
geology,  chemistry,  and  astronomy,  prove  most  un- 
answerably, not  only  that  the  creation  did  not  take 
place  at  so  comparatively  recent  a  period,  but  thai 
there  never  could  have  been  such  a  creation  at  all,  as 
the  one  detailed  in  the  writings  attributed  to  Moses; 
that,  in  fact,  such  a  thing  as  absolute  creation  or  ab- 
solute destruction  is  an  impossibility  and  an  absurdi- 
ty. The  fundamental  principles  of  geological  scieuce, 
as  developed  by  Lyell,  Mantell,  Phillips,  and  others, 
show,  that  this  globe,  so  far  from  being  only  some 
six  thousand  years  old,  is  of  incalculable  antiquity. 
It  must  have  taken  millions  of  years  to  have  accom- 
plished the  various  changes  which  the  earth  has 
undergone.  Sir  R.  Phillips  remarks,  "  thousands  of 
years  must  have  elapsed  between  each  of  the  numer- 
ous formations  which  it  discovers."  "  Geology,  then," 
says  Dr.  Mantell,  in  his  Wonders  of  Geology,  "  does 
not  affect  to  disclose  the  first  creation  of  animated 
nature ;  it  does  not  venture  to  assume  that  we  have 
evidence  of  a  BEGINiVING,  but  it  unfolds  to  us  a 
succession  of  events,  each  so  vast  as  to  be  beyond 
our  finite  comprehension."  An  idea  may  be  formed 
of  the  time  required  to  bring  about  the  various  revo- 
lutions which  have  occurred  in  the  strata  of  the 
earth,  from  the  fact  that  the  sea  shoals  but  about  an 
inch  in  a  century. 

The  science  of  chemistry  teaches  that  there  is  not 
a  single  atom  of  matter  which  can  be  either  created 
or  destroyed;  that  it  can  only  experience  a  change, 
and  that  the  whole  substance  of  the  universe  is  con- 
tinually and  gradually  undergoing  composition,  de- 
composition, and  re-composition,  and  diat,  therefore, 
the  idea  of  the  world  having  been  created — created 
out  of  nothing,  too,  as  taught  in  the  Bible,  is  absurd 
and  impossible.  We  are  told,  in  this  learned  book, 
that  the  universe  was  at  one  time  "without  form 
and  void,"  or,  in  other  words,  a  non-entity,  for  that 
which  is  "  without  form  and  void,"  must  necessarily 


THE    PHILOSOPHY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


205 


be  non-existent.  Science,  however,  has  utterly  ex- 
ploded such  a  preposterous  notion.  Chemistry  has 
triumphantly  established  the  indestructibility  and 
consequent  eternity  of  matter.  An  able  American 
author  observes,  "The  eternal  duration  of  the  earth 
in  some  form  or  other  is  rendered  certain,  by  the 
essential  properties  of  matter;  whatever  does  cxist^ 
must  have  existed  from  all  eternity,  and  from  its 
very  nature,  continue  to  exist  forever."  Sir  John 
Herschell,  unquestionably  the  greatest  natural  phi- 
losopher of  the  age,  in  his  Discourses  on  ^Natural  Phi- 
losophy, has  most  beautifully,  and  clearly,  demon- 
strated the  fundamental  truth  of  chemical  science. 
He  says,  "The  researches  of  chemists  have  shown 
that  what  the  vulgar  call  corruption,  destruction,  &x;., 
is  nothing  but  a  change  of  arrangement  of  the  same 
ingredient  elcincnts — the  disposition  of  the  same  ma- 
terials into  other  forms,  without  the  loss  or  actual  de- 
struct io?i  of  a  single  atom,  and  thus  any  doubts  on 
the  permanence  of  the  natural  la\vs  are  discounten- 
anced, and  the  whole  weight  of  appearances  thrown 
into  the  opposite  scale."  Sir  John  continues,  "One 
of  the  most  obvious  cases  of  apparent  destruction,  is, 
when  anything  is  ground  to  dust  and  scattered,  as 
they  may  be,  they  must  fall  somewhere  and  continue, 
if  only  as  ingredients  of  the  soil,  to  perform  their 
humble,  but  useful  part  in  the  economy  of  nature. 
The  destruction  produced  by  fire  is  more  striking  in 
many  cases,  as  in  the  burning  of  a  piece  of  charcoal 
or  a  taper,  there  is  no  smoke,  nothing  visibly  dissi- 
pated or  carried  away,  tlie  burning  body  wastes  and 
disappears,  while  nothing  seems  to  be  produced  but 
warmth  and  light,  which  we  are  not  in  the  habit  of 
considering  as  substances ;  and,  when  all  has  disap- 
peared, except,  perhaps,  some  trifling  ashes,  we  natu- 
rally enough  suppose  that  it  is  gone,  lost,  destroyed. 
But,  when  the  question  is  examined  more  exactly, 
we  detect  in  the  invisible  stream  of  heated  air,  which 
ascends  from  the  glowing  coal  or  heated  wax,  the 

18 


E 


206 


THE    PHILOSOPHY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


Avhole  ponderable  matter  only  united  in  a  new  com- 
bination with  tlie  air,  and  dissolved  in  it.  Yet,  so 
far  iVom  being  thereby  destroyed,  it  is  only  become 
again  what  it  was  before  it  existed  in  the  form  of 
charcoal  or  wax,  an  active  agent  in  the  business  of 
the  world,  and  a  main  snpport  of  animal  and  vegeta- 
ble life,  and  is  still  susceptible  of  running  again  and 
again  the  same  round,  as  circumstances  may  deter- 
mine, so  that,  for  aught  we  can  see  to  the  contrary, 
the  same  identical  atom  may  lay  concealed  for  thous- 
ands of  centuries  in  a  limestone  rock — may,  at  length, 
be  quarried,  set  free  in  the  lime  kiln,  mix  with^tho 
air,  be  absorbed  from  it  by  plants,  and,  in  succession, 
becomes  a  part  of  the  frames  of  myriads  of  living 
beings,  till  some  occurrence  of  events  consigns  it  once 
more  to  a  long  repose,  which,  however,  no  way  unfits 
it  for  again  resuming  its  former  activity." 

The  science  of  astronomy  alfords  the  most  indubi- 
table evidence  against  the  Mosaic  Cosmogony.  This 
science  propounds  that  the  solar  system,  said  to  have 
been  manufactured  on  the  fourth  day  of  the  Bible 
creation,  has  existed  for  a  period  extending  infinitely 
beyond  the  calculation,  or  even  conception  of  man. 

Its  formation  too,  so  far  from  being  instantaneous, 
as  stated  in  Genesis,  must  have  been  imperceptibly 
slow  and  gradual.  Dr.  Nicholl,  one  of  the  leading 
astronomers  of  the  day,  in  his  "Phenomena  of  the 
►Solar  System"  remarks,  that  "astronomy  explains 
that  the  solar  system  once  existed,  as  a  difi'used  nebu- 
losity, which,  passing  through  various  states  of  con- 
densation, formed  a  central  luminary,  and  its  attend- 
ant planets."  Sir  John  Ilerschell  has  discovered  that 
the  various  constellations  are  surrounded  by  nebulous 
stars  in  various  stages  of  progress,  from  thin,  shape- 
less, masses  of  highly  transparent  matter,  to  stars 
almost  opaque.  From  these  evidences  he  infers  that 
all  the  stars  have  gone  through  this  progress,  growing 
more  opaque  as  they  become  older;  and,  that,  at  last, 
Iiaving  attained  a  certain  opacity,  they  will  decay, 


THE    PHILOSOPHY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


207 


and  slowly  and  gradually  be  resolved  into  chaotic 
matter,  similar  to  the  former  state,  when  they  will 
again,  in  the  same  slow  and  gradual  maimer,  assume 
a  planetary  being.  These  facts,  T  hold,  resting  upon 
such  high  authority,  completely  deinohsh  the  philoso- 
phy of  the  Bible. 

Again :  According  to  the  Genesis  creation,  we 
must  believe  that  this  earth  is  the  principal  body  in 
the  universe — that  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars,  were 
just  hung  up  in  space  as  a  chandelier,  to  throw 
light  upon  the  inhabitants  of  this  contemptible  speck. 
Now,  astronomy  elucidates,  that  this  earth  is  second- 
ary to,  and  dependent  vpon  the  snn,  and  tiiat  Jupiter, 
Saturn,  and  Uranus,  are  much  more  powerful  planets 
than  our  own — Jupiter  being  eleven  times  larger,  Sa- 
turn ten,  and  Uranus  four  and  a  half 

As  to  the  stars,  of  which  the  Bible  story  speaks  so 
contem.ptuously,  as  if  they  were  only  so  many  tiny 
rushlights  to  direct  us  during  the  night,  astronomy 
shows  that  they  are  themselves  suns  —  centres  of 
other  systems — luminaries  of  other  worlds. 

In  this  learned  book  we  detect  similar  blunders  con- 
nected with  the  creation,  but  time  will  not  admit  of 
my  alluding  to  them  all.  I  may  just  observe,  that  we 
arc  informed  the  Lord  divided  light  from  darkness, 
three  days  before  there  could  be  any  light,  if  the  sci- 
ences of  optics  and  astronomy  are  to  be  accredited. — ■ 
It  is  said  that  the  sun,  from  which  our  light  proceeds, 
was  not  created  until  the  fourth  day,  yet  the  liOrd 
divided  light  from  the  darkness  on  the ^/'5^  day.  This, 
at  once,  proves  the  utter  ignorance  of  the  Bible  editors 
of  science  or  philosophy.  But  the  idea  of  dividing 
light  from  darkness,  adds  still  further  to  the  absurdity. 
They  cannot  be  divided,  as  darkness  is  only  the  />»/•/- 
ration  of  light.  Again :  Astronomy  teaches  that  it 
is  by  the  sun  and  moon  we  measure  time  —  days, 
months,  years,  &c. ;  and  yet,  as  above  stated,  there 
were  three  days  before  either  of  these  celestial  bodies 
were  created ! 


I 


208 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE. 


A  most  learyicd  book  this,  indeed !  We  are  also  in- 
formed, that  on  the  second  day  the  Lord  divided  the 
mucerse  into  two  parts,  the  "  firmament,"  and  that 
this  above  partition  was  called  heaven,  and  beneath, 
earth.  Astronomy,  liowever,  has  also  upset  this  ab- 
surdity. That  science  demonstrates  that  there  can  be 
no  such  partition  dividing  space,  but  the  universe  is 
an  endless  series  of  worlds,  all  revolving  in  their  re- 
spective spheres;  and  that  such  a  thing  as  absolute 
above  and  below,  as  applied  to  the  universe,  is  a  mere 
illusion. 

But  is  it  not  a  strange  circumstance,  that  the  Bible 
(»od  should  require y/6e  days  to  manufacture  a  small 
speck  hke  our  globe,  and  then  create  mdlions  of  other 
worlds,  each  of  thcniso  immeasurably  larger  than  onr 
own,  and  all  in  one  day  ?  This  fact  alone  shows  the 
utter  absurdity  of  the  Bible  story.  Some  individuals 
the  most  distinguished  of  whom  is  Dr.  Buckland,  see- 
ing the  utter  inconsistency  of  modern  science  with  the 
Mosaic  account  of  the  creation,  have  endeavored  to 
give  a  different  interpretation  to  that  silly  story,  than 
the  one  hitherto  promulgated. 

They  say,  a  day  in  the  creation  was  not  one  of  our 
days,  but  a  period  involving  thousands  of  years. 

My  friends,  such  gross   perversion  of  language  as 
t^iis  interpretation  implies,  is  only  worthy  of  a  priest 
J\ot  only  docs   the   language  itself  not  admit  of  such 
mterpretation,  but  other  collateral  circumstances  con- 
nected with  the  Bible,  conclusively  proves  its  utter  ah- 
surdity.     The  Jews  themselves,  from  whom  the  book 
emanates,   evidently  used  the  word  in  the  ordinary 
sense ;  hence,   their  institution  of  the  Sabbath.     The 
Lord  says,  they  rested  on  the  seventh  day ;  therefore 
we  ought  to  rest  on  that  day.     He  kept  it  holy,  there- 
lore  we  must.     If,  however,  the  Jewish  and  Christian 
world,   up  to  the  present  period,  have  been  in  error 
upon  this  subject— if  it  be  a  fact  that  the   institution 
ot  the  Sabbath    is  based  upon  an  illusion,   then  our 
houses  of  God''  may  be  closed  not  only  on  the  sixth 


THE  PHILOSOPHY  OF  THE  BIBLE. 


209 


u 


but  on  the  seventh  day  of  the  week,  and  "  the  gentle- 
men of  the  cloth"  may  earn  their  ''bread"  by  the 
"  sweat  of  their  brow."  O  !  what  an  awkward  mis- 
take. Dr.  Buckland  !  How  unfortunate  that  you  did 
not  discover  in  the  depth  of  your  sagacity,  that  if  the 
Christian  world  Avere  to  become  Bucklaudites,  and 
act  consistently  with  their  "philosopliy,"  that,  like 
Othello,  your  "occupation  would  be  gone  !  "  To  clear 
yourself  from  one  dilemma,  3^011  have  fallen  into  an- 
other infinitely  worse.  What  does  the  pious  Sir  An- 
drew Agnew  say  upon  this  pohit  ?  His  labors  will  be 
superseded  if  you  speak  the  truth.  In  respect  to  the 
learned  story  of  the  creation  and  fall  of  man,  I  deem 
it  almost  too  contemptible  to  refer  to.  The  idea  of 
tnan  having  been  made  out  of  the  dust  of  the  ground, 
rolled  together  like  a  snow-ball,  and  then  inllatcd  with 
the  breath  of  life,  as  Mr.  Green  would  inflate  his  bal- 
loon—  and  of  women  being  subsequently  manufac- 
tured out  of  one  of  the  man's  rihs,  is  fit  only  for  an 
age  of  barbarism.  The  individual  who  could  ac- 
knowledge a  story  so  exquisitely  ridiculous,  must  be 
endowed  v/ith  a  most  inordinate  relish  for  the  "  mar- 
vellous." He  Avould  believe  that  the  moon  was  made 
of  green  cheese,  if  the  Bible  only  §aid  so. 

A  question,  however,  arises  out  of  this  tale,  which  is 
of  some  moment.  Its  consideration  will  enable  me  to 
show  the  ignorance  of  the  Bible  writers  upon  two 
otiier  leading  sciences,  physiology  and  comparative 
anatomy.  According  to  this  account,  we  ought  to  be- 
lieve that  the  whole  of  the  human  species  originated 
from  Adam  and  Eve.  Science,  however,  commands 
us  to  believe  otherwise.  It  has  been  discovered, 
through  the  observations  and  researches  of  Bulfon, 
Blumenbach,  Cuvier,  Fleuren,  and  other  physiologists 
and  naturalists,  that  the  human  species  are  divided 
into  different  races,  which  Blumenbach  classifies  as  fol- 
lows : — The  Caucassian,  Mongolian,  Ethiopic,  Ameri- 
can, and  Malay  varieties.  M.  Fleuren,  a  most  dis- 
tingnished  naturalist,  maintahis  that  the  difference  of 

18* 


% 


210 


THE  PHIIiOSOPHY  OF  THE  BinLE. 


Structure  between  the  white  and  colored  races,  is  sufTi- 
cient  to  prove  that  they  arc  of  dillereiit  stocks,  or,  as 
he  expresses  it,  of  *'  essentially  distinct  races.'*     Tliis 
diirerence  lies  principally  in  the  structure  of  the  skin, 
which  he  shows  is  not  the  same  in  the    white  as  in 
the  colored  man.     In  the  case  of  Europeans,  tinged 
by  exposure    to  the   sun's   rays,  the  mucous   web  is 
Avhat  is  affected,   becoming,  as  it  were,  slightly  color- 
ed.    No  degree  of  exposure  can,  he  thinks,  confer  the 
coloring  layers  of  the  Negro  and  other  dark  races.— 
lie  remarks,  that  the  ''African  Moors  who  have  lived 
beside  the  Megroes  for  centuries,  have  never  acquired 
the  coloring  apparatus  of  that  race;  and   it  has  been 
observed  by  travellers,  ((  aptain  I. yon  among  others,) 
that  the  Isuricks,  a  race  of  African  Caucassians.  of  a 
dark  brown  complexion,  are  nearly  a.s  while  on  il>esc 
r«rl3f  cil  iJMiir  Inxlics  covered  up  fr<»rii  the  bun,  ji$  nic»icl 
i'.uri>i)opn8.     h  js  u\^  well  kiiouij,  thai   the  i»r<iK4'ny 
ol  4-in  JviiDJi^win,  lK>w<!verimidi   he  inreJii   have  !»c€ii 
lnii?cd  by  tho  8tin,  i.^  invariably,  as  ulnco  115  he  him- 
scll  WM  al  drsL     TIh!  bLirk  ruce«  are  locaJi^jed  in  llio 
waniiesl  r.         sof  Uu^  aIol.>,  a,„l  their  t.kiii  mul  ceti©. 
lal  con.siituiiu;i,  secni  a<b|HetJ   for  tlwir  allotnieiil.     A 
Wack  man  can  Iw  nakiMl,  ex|)o»ftl  to  llio  hottest  sim 
without  iti  uhil<!  Urn  skill  of  Uwj  while   nuiii,  i} 

^\]HjiA'A\  \u  .>uujiar  lioM,  breaks  out  in  bli.stcrs.  Ilic 
black  man  can  lal«r  snider  a  biiriiiiii:  sin  with  impu- 
nity, but  the  white  man  .^ink8  under  i^xorlion  mode  in 
Mich  circimwtiinci.-*.'^  Krom  these  and  umny  o4lier 
fiicls,  u Iiieh  I  luivc  not  time  to  enumerate,  M  VUuun 
uiforsi  that  then*  w  acofi.Ntiiiuioiiai  and  di»linri  dUi<>rw 
Clioc  Urtv.'oeii  tho  various  uiccs  of  iJteiiikiiHi,  uliieh 
proyo  Hint  they  niij.sthave  ori;?inallv«irnnc  from  pcT- 
kclly  M^IKirare  .stock*;  mid  if  i.j,  tlio  story  o{  A<Lru 
ami  r  .ve  being  jlio  jxnrent  of  the  human  race,  i»  hkc 
he  rest  oT  the  Hil4i!  phik^phy  — ixmsense.  Cham. 
bcT^iA^rvcs,  uiHHi  ihw  Miljoci:  '-In  fom>er  tin»e«, 
nfira,  only  two  varielics,  tf,«  whii,>  and  iIhj  blaek, 
nero  rccuLin^cxl  or  llionghl  oT,   it  wa«  ajp^Kit^sl   that 


THE   PHILOSOPHY  OF  TBB  MBLK. 


211 


I 


complexion  was  simply  a  re«iiU  of  the  actions  oT  the 
sun's  rays.  This  idea  would  iialurv^lly  ari:^>  ffotn  its 
being  observed  that  exposiirx*  to  the  suiij  darkoiiod  a 
white  person,  while  seclusion  tended  to  14ench  or 
whiten  him,  and  that  die  black  n-ftli«)«i8  wore  c1 
those  who  occupied  tropica!  coimtricu,  winio  ihc  whiter 
Avere  placed  in  the  temperate  zotic.     The  (.;  wl«> 

never  doubted  that  they  were  the  j>erfociioii  aiKi  stand- 
ard of  human  nature,  and  who«;iiterlained  cx:is(s?era!ci:l 
notions  of  the  heat  of  the  Afritv^n  .<im,  won^  strongly 
impressed  with  the  idea,  that  the  Ni.l'dj  iiatkxid  liad 
been  originally  white,  am!  bad  Ihh!ii  ehafit^?d  into 
black  by  the  action  of  tho  ^ilar  r  ' '    >  notiiwi 

continued  to  be  set  forward,  imdn  .  bv  natural- 

ists,  down  to  the  time  of  nnllon.  and  jk  ^Illl  the  I 

of  tiio  isnorunt  in  most  comiirJeK.*' 

Ill  tiie  34ory  of  the  fall  of  man.  it  is  8iatc<l  tluit  tltie 
8i.T^»ent  WU8  aillictod  with  the  curse  o^  :  u\)nn 

lis  Ixilly.  TJiitt  evinces  iho  gfoisse^l  )giw>rancc  of  the 
nature  of  that  nnforttinatt!  re]ittle.      It  is  €  ily 

cuuslrtieitAl  by  natna\  50  as  to  move  in  tlint  ])os4ti(m, 
ami  Co  call  il  a  €UR40  to  make  i(  co  in  that  mamt«r, 
18  a  mixiiomor.  But,  pray,  if  il  did  not  always  ^p  011 
ilK  Ix'lly,  how  miuht  it  exert  loromutioii.  l)cforc  it  in- 
ciirrinl  1I115  **divnio  disvpleaMire  ?*'  I'lxin  its  head  or 
its  tail  ?  'I'fiily,  iIhtc  mu^^t  have  boon  some  natural 
ciiriociitios  in  the  antirleliiviaii  world  ! 

1  mntil  now  reiiutik   upon  tho  next  evkloiKe  of  the. 
great  k^iniiti^  o^  llw*  Bible — //a^  /><//••  My  ob&er- 

Vatiotis  mn^<  noeoJsmrily  Ixj  brtel*.  a*  I  have  other 
matters  to  e«  r  cro  I  retire     In  (Genesis,  e.  vi., 

and  vii.,  vre  reiul  that  a  few  tlionsaiMl  years  ago, 
tllOfC  was  a  tmiv^rsid  tieln^c,  erery  hvmg  ihinsj'.  ex- 
cept N<Kili  ami  lib  family,  and  a  pair  of  each  race  of 
aninuited  cxisteiicx^:  they  biMUg  .%ave<l  in  a  woo*]-  1 
box>  •,  I  an  ark%  wliicli  flncitcd  U|»o«i  tho  wat*  t  . 
zuid  which  were  s»:»  ileep,  tlwit  they  <!over<Ml  the  ftiq^fi- 
CM  nMHintaiiis.  This  abMird  story  i.-s  inconsi.sieiii  in 
the  ^ift%  place   with   tiiu  fumlameiual   pr         'cs  of 


212 


THE   PHILOSOPHY   OF    THE    BIRLE. 


natural  pliilosophy.  According  to  the  law  of  ilukh 
it  would  liuvc  been  physically  impossible  for  rhe 
7phoh  globe  to  be  inundated  at  one  and  the  smnc  time 
Such  an  idea,  indeed,  exhibits  little  acquaintance 
with  the  principles  of  attraction  and  gravitation.  But 
it  tins  could  occur,  we  learn  Iroin  the  ])hilosophy  of 
the  tides,  that  through  the  iuiluence  of  the  moon 
npon  the  surface  of  this  planet,  there  is  a  continued 
ebbing  and  flowing  of  the  ocean,  to  the  extent  of 
twelve  or  fifteen  feet  every  twelve  hours.  Now,  if 
the  whole  earth  was  under  water,  and  to  the  depth 
of  the  highest  mouutaiiis,  the  agitation  of  that  im- 
mense ocean  nuist  be  so  tremendous,  that  it  would  be 
impossible  for  any  body  to  flout  upon  its  surface. 
Everything  would  be  ensrulphed  in  the  foaming  bil- 
lows. Nothing  could  resist  it.  l^ie  ark,  had  it  been 
a  thousand  times  the  size,  would  have  been  dashed 
to  pieces,  and  its  inmates  annihilated. 

Ikit,  where  was  the  immense  supi)ly  of  water  to 
come  from  necessary  to  deluge  the  world,  and  to 
''cover  the  highest  mountains?"  The  Andes  are 
stated  to  be  2U,000  feet  above  the  level  of  the  sea, 
and  it  has  been  calculated,  that  the  weight  of  the 
atmosphere,  with  all  its  vapors,  is  ecpial  to  no  more, 
than  a  hollow  sphere  of  about  thirty  feet  of  thiclcness, 
environing  the  whole  globe ;  and,  conseqnently,  the 
whole  ol  its  contents,  if  condensed  into  water,  could 
not  deluge  the  earth  to  the  height  of  an  ordinary 
house. 

Let  us  now  speak  of  the  Ark  itself.  According  to 
the  Jiible  description,  it  was  only  300  cubits  long^,  or 
about  525  feet;  50  cubits,  or  87  1-2  feet  broad-  and 
30  cubits,  or  52  1-2  feet  high.  It  is  manifest  that  a 
vessel,  ol  such  limited  dimensions,  could  not  contain 
a  thousandth  part  of  what  must  have  been  stowed 
mto  It  to  include  Noah  and  his  children,  and  a  male 
and  female  of  all  living  things,  together  with  the  food 
necessary  to  serve  them  for  so  long  a  period  as  five 
months.     The  writer  of  this  marvellous  story,  ex- 


THE    PHILOSOPHY    OF   THE    BIRLE. 


213 


hibits  the  deepest  ignorance  of  the  sciences  of  orni- 
thology, entymology,  natural  history,  chemistry,  phy- 
siology, zoology,  and  natural  philosophy,  lie  could 
not  have  known  that  there  are  some  millions  of 
species  of  birds,  beasts,  and  insects;  and,  as  to  the 
fishes,  how  could  they  be  "drowned?"  How  could 
a  "deluge"  destroy  them?  A  universal  Hood,  in- 
stead of  being  a  curse  to  that  part  of  "  living  beings," 
would  be  a  "  god- send  " — a  universal  feast.  O! 
what  sport  for  the  sharks  and  the  dolphins ! 

This  learned  writer  was  not  aware  that  it  would 
have  been  quite  impossible  for  such  an  immense 
numl)er  of  animals  to  exist  for  so  long  a  period,  with- 
out light  or  fresh  air.  We  are  told  there  was  only 
one  Avindow  to  the  Ark,  and  that  was  shut  for  the 
whole  of  the  150  days.  He  must  have  been  ignorant, 
too,  of  another  physiological  fact — that  dillerent  de- 
grees of  temperature  were  necessary  to  supjxjrt  the 
various  animals  for  any  time.  The  climate  which 
would  suit  one,  would  destroy  another.  But  there  is 
no  mention  of  such  an  indispensable  provision. 

The  fact  is,  the  whole  of  this  story,  from  the  begin- 
ning to  the  end,  is  only  a  tissue  of  the  most  barbarous 
ignorance  and  stupidity. 

Christians,  themselves,  are  growing  ashamed  of  it. 
Dr.  Pyc  Smith,  one  of  the  most  intelligent  divines  of 
the  present  day,  admits,  that  "  the  Hood  could  not  be 
universal,"  nor  could  it  have  "  resulted  in  the  de- 
struction of  all  animal  life;"  and,  he  further  remarks, 
"connecting  the  question  with  physical  causes,  it 
appeared  to  him  that  unless  we  resorted  to  miracu- 
lous agency  (against  the  gratuitous  assumption  of 
which  he  protested,  as  both  unphilosophical  and  pre- 
sumptuous) it  was  impossible  to  imagine  the  Ark 
capable  of  containing  parts  of  all  the  animals  whose 
existence  must  entirely  depend  on  their  exemption 
from  inundation." 

The  learned  doctor  then  proceeds  to  detail  the 
great  variety  of  species  in  tlie   animal  creation,  and 


I 


I 


214 


THE    PHILOSOPHY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


to  show  the  impossibility  of  stowing  away  in  a  wood- 
en box,  such  an  immense  number  ot'  living  beings. 

Dr.  Burnet,  in  the  Archeologia3  Philosophije,^c.  iv., 
p.  40,  says  that  the  quantity  of  water  it  would  take 
to  cover  the  tops  of  the  liighest  mountains,  as  stated 
in  this  story,  "must  at  least  exceed  the  magnitude 
of  eight  oceans."  He  further  admits,  "so  great  a 
quantity  of  water  can  no  where  be  found,  though  we 
exhaust  all  the  treasures  of  water  in  heaven  or  earth, 
and  add  besides  the  subterraneous  water,*"  and  that, 
"howsoever,  or  from  what  place  soever,  tbis  prodi- 
gious mass  of  water  was  brought  upon  the  eartb, 
there  cfyuld  be  no  ineans  of  rcmocing  if,  or  any  possi- 
ble method  found  out  of  taking  away  such  a  mighty 
heap  of  water."  From  these  premises  the  learned 
Doctor  concludes,  "  that  our  present  earth  was  not 
subject  to  a  deluge,  nor  is  it  capable  of  it  by  its  shape 
or  elevation." 

The  discoveries,  however,  of  modern  geologists,  set 
the  question  of  a  universal  deluge  completely  at  rest. 
They  incontrovertibly  prove  that   the  cbanges  of  the 
eartii's  surface  have  not   been  produced  by  a  general 
flood,  but  by  the  ffradual  operation  of  iirt/er  and  /tcfi/. 
The   marine   shells  found  on   tlie  tops   of  mountains, 
and  other  elevated  situations,  liave   been  forced  there 
by  igneous   agency,  and   are  not,   as  conjectured   by 
theologians,  the  remains  of  Noah's  tlood.     Time  will 
not  admit  of  my  giving  you  any  flicts   from  tliat  in- 
teresting science.     I  must  leave  the  subject,  by  quot- 
ing the  following  words  from  the  poet  Coleridge.      "  I 
think  it  absurd,"  says  he,  in  his  "Table  Talk,"  "to 
attribute   so   much    to    the   deluge.     An   inundation, 
which   left  an   olive-tree   standing,    and  bore   up   tbe 
Ark    peacefully   on    its    bosom,  could    scarcely   bave 
been  the  sole   cause  of  the   rents  and   dislocations  ob- 
servable on  the  face  of  the  earth." 

ANe  have  reviewed  that  portion  of  this  /earned 
book  which  contains  the  cream  of  its  "philosophy." 
There  are  numerous  other  passages,  however,  which 


THE   PHILOSOPHY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


215 


display  the  same  lack  of  scientific  information.  I 
will  refer  you  to  a  few  of  them,  hi  1  Kings,  c.  viii., 
v.  35,  we  read  of  "heaven  being  shut  up,  '  in  order 
that  there  should  be  no  rain.  From  this,  and  many 
similar  passages,  it  is  clear  that  the  learned  men  who 
composed  that  eminently  scientific  production  were 
perfectly  unacquainted  with  the  fact,  that  rain  was 
produced  by  evaporation  and  condensation,  but  im- 
agined that  it  came  from  some  place  above,  the  bot- 
tom of  which,  I  suppose,  was  like  a  huge  watering 
can,  and  whenever  it  suited  the  "Lord"  he  sprinkled 
us  with  a  refreshing  shower  as  a  gardener  would  his 
flowers. 

In  (jen.,  c.  i.,  v.  12,  it  is  said,  "Let  the  earth  bring 
forth  grass."  6ic.  Now  it  would,  at  least,  have  been 
a  little  more  rational,  as  well  as  "  philosophical,"  to 
have  made  the  earth  produce  "  grass"  after  the  crea- 
tion of  the  sun  instead  of  before  it.  In  (<en.,  c.  ix., 
V.  12,  13,  we  read,  that  the  Lord,  for  the  first  time, 
hung  a  rainbow  in  the  clouds  as  a  sign  of  his  cove- 
nant with  the  people  after  the  deluge.  The  science 
of  optics  proves  that  the  rainbow  is  but  a  natural 
phenomenon.  It  is  merely  the  result  of  the  refrangi- 
bility  and  refiexibility  of  the  rays  of  light.  It  could 
not  have  been  the  first  time  a  rainbow  was  produced, 
for  so  long  as  light  and  vapor  existed  such  a  phenome- 
non must  have  been  produced.  Either,  therefore,  this 
story  is  false,  or  else  prior  to  the  deluge  there  could 
have  been  no  li<r/tt  or  no  vapor — in  either  of  which 
cases,  animal  life  would  have  been  impossible. 

In  Genesis,  c.  xi.,  we  are  told  of  the  building  of  the 
Tower  of  Babel^  and  the  confusion  of  tongues.  The 
Bible  chronology  places  the  building  of  this  tower  only 
115  years  after  the  destruction  of  mankind  by  the 
flood,  and  even  rchile  Noah  ivas  yet  alive.  How  can 
these  two  stories  be  reconciled  ?  It  is  said  that  there 
were  only  Noah  and  his  family  who  survived  the 
deluge.  Could  they  have  multiplied  so  rapidly,  in 
that  short  time,   as  to  populate  a  city^  and  erect  such 


\\ 


216 


THE    PHILOSOPHY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


an  enormous  tower  !  It  would  liave  required  an  im- 
mense nnmber  of  persons,  with  great  scientific  know- 
ledge, (the  result  of  long  research,)  to  raise  so  lofty  a 
pile.  Its  height  was  estimated  at  81,000  feet,  and  it 
had  a  road-way  on  its  outside,  which  went  eight  times 
around  its  ascent,  so  as  to  give  the  whole  the  appear- 
ance of  eight  towers  one  above  another.  It  is  per- 
fectly ridiculous  to  suppose  that  such  a  prodigious 
Avork  could  have  been  entered  upon,  much  less  carried 
forward  to  the  extent  stated,  at  so  early  a  date  after 
the  period  we  are  told  that  there  was  only  one  family 
of  human  beings  in  existence  !  Such  a  story  is  only 
worthy  of  the  Bible.  The  greatest  absurdity,  how- 
ever, is  in  suj)posing  that  God  should  be  afraid  that 
the  people  would  accornplish,  their  design  of  building 
a  tower  whose  top  should  reach  heaven  I  Pray,  to 
what  point  in  the  heavens  did  the  builders  of  this  tower 
intend  going?  and  how  did  they  purpose  to  reach 
there?  If  to  the  moon,  as  that  is  the  nearest  object  in 
the  heavens,  it  vvoidd  have  taken  a  builder,  going  at 
the  rate  of  four  miles  an  hour,  night  and  day,  without 
either  sli^ep  or  refreshment,  seven  years  to  reach  the 
destined  p!)iut,  with  one  single  load  of  building  mate- 
rials !  If  to  the  sun,  at  the  same  rate,  it  would  take 
Inm  3,000  years  to  carry  one  load  of  lime.  But  if  they 
were  ambitious  of  going  to  {\\g  first  fixed  star,  it  would 
have  taken,  at  that  rate,  48  millions  of  years  to  reach 
it !  !  Why,  if  they  had  made  the  foundation  ol  Babel 
one  fourth  of  a  square  mile  in  circumference,  and 
made  all  the  earth  into  bricks  and  lime,  they  would 
have  been  little  more  than  Jialf  way  io  ihc  first  fixed 
star,  and  tlie  ite.vt  fixed  star  is  supposed  to  be  as  far 
behind  the  first  as  the  first  is  from  the  earth  !  But 
sup])ose  all  these  dilUculties  surmounted,  a  new  one 
would  arise,  when  the  builders  approached  so  near  the 
heavenly  bodies  as  to  leel  more  forcibly,  than  from  the 
earth,  the  power  of  attraction.  In  this  case,  men, 
bricks,  and  mortar,  with  all  their  tools,  and  other  ma- 
terials, would  ily  olT  in  a  direct  line  to  the  moon,  and 


i 


THE    PHILOSOPHY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


217 


for  ever  prevent  the  completion  of  this  wonderful  pro- 
ject !  The  folly  and  impossibility  of  the  thing  stamp 
the  whole  story  with  a  character  which  ought  to  make 
Christians  ashamed  of  calling  such  nonsense  the  word 
of  an  "intelligent  God." 

The  enlightened  editors  of  this  divine  story  must 
have  known  little  of  moral  philosophy.  To  read  the 
Bible,  it  would  appear  that  the  hcai't  was  the  scat  of 
volition  and  sensation.  Esdras  says,  c.  xiv.,  v.  40, 
"  my  heart  uttered  understanding.''  Innumerable  odier 
passages  might  be  quoted.  The  discoveries,  hovv^ever, 
of  Lawrence  and  Gall,  in  the  sciences  of  Anatomy, 
Physiology,  and  Phrenology,  establish  that  the  brain 
is  the  seat  of  thought  and  sensation.  None  of  the  great 
naturalists  of  the  last  100  years,  Cuvier,  Blumenbach, 
or  Butlbn,  have  taught  such  a  notion  as  the  one  pro- 
pounded in  the  Bible.  It  is  deemed  too  absurd  to 
notice. 

In  Genesis,  c.  vi.,  v.  4,  wo  are  informed  that  there 
were  "  giants  in  the  earth  in  those  days."  Modern 
science  has  completely  exploded  that  absurdity  also. 

The  "  philosophers"  of  die  Bible  dilfer  very  mate- 
rially with  the  philosophers  of  this  age,  upon  that 
most  important  of  all  sciences — Education.  We  are 
t)ld,  in  Prov.,  c.  x,  v.  13,  that  a  "/W  is  for  the  back  of 
hun  that  is  void  of  understanding.^''  It  has  been  dis- 
covered, however,  by  Pestalozzi  and  other  enlightened 
educationalists,  that  to  follow  the  Bible  philosophy 
would  not  only  be  inhuman  but  impolitic,  and  that 
mild  and -persuasive  means  are  to  be  preferred  to  co- 
ercion or  punishment.  It  is  none  but  bigots  who 
know  nothing  of  the  science  of  education,  who  resort 
to  that  absurd  and  severe  treatment. 

I  sliall  here  speak  of  that  fatal  absurdity.  Witch- 
craft. In  Exodus,  c.  xxii.,  v.  IS,  it  is  enjoined,  "Thou 
shalt  not  sufier  a  witch  to  live,"  and  in  1  Samuel,  c. 
xxiii,  V.  7,  we  read  of  that  savage  and  cunning  priest 
consulting  the  Witch  of  Endor.  My  friends,  if  there 
be  one  thing  more  than  another  which  exposes  the  ig- 

19 


218 


THE    PHILOSOPHY    OF    THE    BIBLE. 


norriiice  of  the  Bible  writers,  it  is  the  institution  of  the 
law  prohil)iting  witchcraft.  There  never  was  such  a  ' 
thiuL^  as  a  witch,  no  more  than  there  have  been  ghosts 
or  hohgobhns.  All  enlightened  men  now  rcpndiate 
the  idea  as  a  mere  imposition.  Even  the  "vulgar'' 
begin  to  laugh  at  it.  Well  had  it  been  for  mankind, 
if  the  delusion  had  ended  in  mere  belief,  but  unfortu- 
nately, in  consequence  of  the  foolish  and  brutal  in- 
junction just  read,  thousands  of  our  fellow  behigs  have 
been  murdered — murdered  too,  under  the  most  humili- 
ating and  revolting  circumstances.  The  follies  and 
cruelties,  indeed,  connnitted  through  the  inllucnce  of 
such  writers  as  the  Bible  authors,  are  incalculable, 
and  never  will  humanity  become  enlightened  and 
good  until  the  productions  of  such  men  are  perma- 
nently and  absoliUely  discarded. 

It  would  be  a  pity  to  omit  noticing  the  precious  tale 
of  Jonah  and  the  whale,  in  this  list  of  '•  inspired  "  ab- 
surdities.     It  is  such  a  glorious  specimen  of  the  leaini- 
ing  of  the  Bible,   that  it  ought  to  receive  honorable 
mention,  and  especially  when  we  remember  that  the 
hero  of  the  story  was  a  jn-ophct.  In  .Jonah,  c.  i.,  v.  17, 
we  are  informed  that  this  pro})het-monger  met  with  a 
singular  misfortune.     The   account  states    that  "the 
Lord  had  prepared  a  great  fish  to  swallow  up  .lonah, 
and  Jonah  was  in  the  belly  of  the  fish  three  days  and 
three  nights."     This  fish,  Christ  tells  us,  in  Matt.,  c. 
xii.,  V.  40,  (and  I  presume  he  will  be  a  com])eient  ixn- 
thority,)  was  a  W«f/e .'     Why  this  fish  should   have 
been  selected  more  than  any  other  for  the  domicile  of 
the  prophet,  1  know  not,  except  it  be,  that  because  the 
whale   is  the  largest  fish,    it   was   presumed   that  it 
would  have  the  largest  throaty    and  consequently  tlie 
most   convenient    of  access.       Unluckily,     however, 
modern  anatomists   have  discovered,   that  though  the 
animal  is  enormously   large,  its   throat  is  exceedingly 
small — so  small  that  it  is  not  an  inch  and  a  half  in 
diameter!      How,  therefore,    the  prophet  Jonah,  who 
might,  probably,  have  been  like  some  of  our   modern 
country  rectors,  of  tolerable  plumpness  and  rotundity, 


THE   PHILOSOPHY   OF   THE   BIBLE. 


219 


succeeded  in  making  his  way  through  such  a  capa- 
cious aperture,  would  require  a  miracle  to  explain, 
and  how  he  managed  to  live  for  three  days  in  the 
whale's  belly,  when  he  did  got  in,  would  require  a 
still  greater  miracle  to  elucidate!  It  is  evident,  that 
the  author  of  this  story  labored  under  the  vulgar  mis- 
take that  the  gullet  of  the  whale  would  be  commen- 
surate with  its  general  bulk — a  mistake  quite  natural 
to  a  Bible  editor. 

Having  proceeded  thus  far  with  our  observations, 
we  must  draw  to  a  close.  Had  time  allowed,  I  should 
have  been  ha})py  to  have  amused  you  with  a  critique 
upon  the  stories  of  Joshua  and  the  Sun — ]']zckiel  and 
his  dinner — there  being  no  rain  on  the  earth  for  three 
years  and  sia;  months — stars  falling  from  heaven — 
Christ  and  the  fig-tree — and  his  visit  with  his  "Sa- 
tanic majesty  "  to  the  top  of  the  mountain,  whence  he 
saw  all  the  kingdoms  of  the  world,  which  the  science 
of  astronomy  sliows,  from  the  spherical  form  of  the 
earth,  to  be  impossible — Kzokiel  and  his  being  lifted 
up  by  a  lock  (f  his  hair  into  the  midst  of  the  heavens 
— the  angel  receiving  wages  for  his  advice  to  the  man 
Tobias — the  ass  and  the  lion  talking  with  the  ^^  man's 
voice" — the  "glorious  times"  mentiuned  in  l^lxodus, 
wlu^n  the  Lord  "  rained  bread  from  heaven,"  and 
ma.uy  other  l^iblical  wonders.  I  will  give  you,  how- 
ever, one  more  specimen  ere  I  conclude.  It  is  Ezckiel's 
visit  to  the  valley  of  bones.  Tljat  learned  prophet 
says,  c.  xxxvii.,  v.  1 — 10,  "  The  hand  of  the  liord  was 
upon  me,  and  carried  me  out  in  the  spirit  of  the  Lord, 
and  set  me  down  in  the  midst  of  the  vallev\  which 
was  full  of  bones,  and  caused  me  to  pass  by  tliem 
roundabout:  and,  behold,  there  were  very  many  in 
the  open  valley;  and  lo,  they  were  very  dry.  And  he 
said  unto  me,  Son  of  man.  can  these  bones  live?  And 
I  answered,  ( )  Lord  God,  thou  knowest.  And  again 
he  said  unto  me.  Prophesy  unto  these  bones,  and  say 
unto  them.  O  !  yo  dry  bones,  hear  the  word  of  the 
Lord !  Thus  saith  the  Lord  God  unto  these  bones, 
Behold,  1  Vv^ill  cause  breath  to  enter  you,  and  ye  shall 


220 


THE   PHILOSOPHY    OF   THE   BIBLE. 


live  and  I  will  lav  sinews  upon  you,  and  will  bring 
111)  flesh  upon  you,  and  cover  you  with  skin,   and  put 
breath   into  you,   and  ye  shall  live,  and  know  that  I 
am  the  T  .ord.     So  I  prophesied  as  1  was  commanded  ; 
and,  as  I  prophesied,  there  was  a  noise,  and  behold  a 
shaking,   and   the  bones  came  together,  bone  to   his 
bone.      And  when   I  beheld,  lo,  the  sinews  and  the 
flesh    came  upon  them,  and  the  skin   covered  them 
above:  but  there  was  no  breath  in  them.     Ihen  saic 
he  unto  me,  Prophesy  unto  the  wind,  prophesy,  >on  ot 
man,  and  say  to  the  wind.  Thus  saith  the  l.ord  Cod, 
(.^ome  from  the  four  winds,  ()  breath,  and  breathe  upon 
these  slain,  that  they  may  live.     So   I   prophesied,  as 
he  conunanded    me,  and  the  ])ieath   came  nUo  them, 
and  they  lived,    and  stood  14)011  their  feet,  an  exceecl- 
imr  great  armv  !  !  "     Ti>i«  i«  NomethiuK  hke  a  story, 
'hie  lovers  of' the  \vond(;rl'nl   need   iioltMimiU  JSHTOil 

Munchausen.  ^  ,.        /      1   *i 

Mv  iViiMids,  if  such  puerile  r!inps<Mlto^  (aint  tli<! 
Uible  abounds  in  such  passages,)  arc  to  l»c  c^ecmcd 
as  philosopliv,  scicMice,  learnini^,  llicii  nw  ihc  nui|H«ir- 
in<.s  of  fanulicism  to  b(i  considertxl  Xhc  only  critoria 
of^'lunnan  cnlighlcnnicnt,  and  llie  deep.  \\Mm\\.  aiwl 
(•laboiJite  researches  of  iho  great  aiid  the  WttC,  nui»l 
\)ct  Ncoulcd  as  mere  hallu<'inali<>n^ 

hi  former  lectures  I  felt  it  my  duty  to  repudiate  ihc 
Jhblo  as  a  standard  of  consistency  and  morality. 

I  now  d.'cm  it  incumbent  upon  me  10  <liM:anJ  U  cis  a 
slaudanl  of  pbilosophy. 

hi  Ibis  docii^ion  I  am  supporKnl  by  rvuleiKJC  too 
hicontrovernble  U)  be  ivfuled  — t<M>  pn1pab5c  lo  be 
denir.l  'I'ho  science  of  Astronomy  warranto  me  in  ro- 
pu(halln^  it-  (Ecology,  ( 'hcmislry  Anatomy  lliysinlo- 
CV,  Natural  History,  Phrenology,  Natural  Hulo^oph), 
ail  the  vjirious  arts'  and  sciences  with  which  man  !» 
acouainted,  warrant  m«*  in  condemning*  it.  Jtcloro  siicn 
authority,  this  'Mcariicd  "  hook  must,  i'r«  long,  hido 
its  diminislKHl  head—sink  to  its  om^  iiativo  1iiiIoim'.k5 
and  absurdity,  and  never  more  involve  hunuiniiy  m 
error,  mystery,  crime,  and  delusion  ! 


LECTUEE  TWELFTH. 


IXFI.UKNCE  OF  THE  B115LE  ON  SOCIETY. 


FlUENDS 

Pursuant  to  the  intimation  civcii  last  Sunday  cv'c- 
niiig,  I  p«ir|»«»>*e,  ill  this  arldrcs.^  to  r<insider  Mr  Ittfiu^ 
cnrt  of  thv  liihit  mt  Sacuiy.  U:iv\\i<r  fully  ;in,|  enn- 
rlusivHy  di5,|>rov«»il    its   diriiiily.  -..i   trace  iIhj 

ooi^^-ipiCMicc^  u'hich  Imvc  f»ll"wcNl  a  mistai:^  «i 
e'jR'L'iuiis  and  falul. 

\N  c  will  minini*ticc  «iiT  rrview  wilh  ihe  <1irisliaii 
eta.  I  slH>uld  dixin  it  a  ta»k  uVtUc  iinni?cr5snry  nnil 
rm^biirhoty  to  uiiic^r  into  ilio  Jewish  history.  No 
ciilightci>cil  911(1  philniithmpic  iniml  can  (X!rii5C  its 
criniMiii   |>n»ic  without  Iw^rror  ond  disgust.     HUx*-l  • 

IiUnxI  !  hl«» IS  D'cnrrlwl  on  cnTy  loaf.     The  n;:-.i 

olxhirato  9i\(\  <loprav«Ni  hoart  must  be  sicktMied  on 
rending  the  atrociii*.^  therein  detailed— atro<'iiici«,  sgiiil 
lo  have  bo<!n  i»rfornic<l  in  iIh*  **  nanie  of  tlie  L^^rd.'* 
by  his  own  **chi>j*m  |)mplc."  ()!  while  the  yoiii|i 
oi'onr  country  aa*  trained  to  jMjflido-r  over  such  M^cnrs 
of  h\noi\  and  canhij?4\  soriciy  u'lii  alu'avs  be  criid 
and  dctnowlized,  'I'Ik?  spirit  of  Inr*'  anrf  virliwi  can 
never  lloiirish  anMKic^sl  us,  while  that  pmdnetion 
«\vays  the  cipiiiinain  and  actions  of  inaiikiii<l. 

Had  llic  |iriesth<KHl  or<:|iriM<^n<lnm,  assisted  by  liis 
5^atanic  Majesty  himself,  eiKh-iivurod  to  compose  a 
book  tor  iIk!  |)iir|M>»f?  of  kec|Mn^  the  Inmiaii  race  iu:- 
iKMraiit,  crediilotiK.  «npicr8t>tii^ii5i,  brutal,  and  wirtmj 


222 


INFLUENCE    OF    THE    BIBLE    ON    SOCIETY. 


they  could  not  have   produced  one  better  adapted   for 
tlie  purpose  than  the  Old  Testament. 

It  is,  as  I  formerly  observed,  an  immoral  pub- 
lication. 

It  has  served  to  support  the  most  revolting  and 
despicable  purposes.  It  has  been  the  apologist  of 
the  tyrant  in  his  oppressions — the  conqueror  in  his 
butcheries — the  incjuisitor  in  his  tortures — the  slave- 
holder in  his  cruelties— the  debauchee  in  his  revelries 
— and  the  priest  in  his  impostures  ! 

Were  it  possible,  by  some  magic  power,  to  bury  in 
oblivion  that  ponderous  volume,  and  blot  out  from 
the  memory  of  man  the  dark  and  cruel  scenes  which 
it  d(;pi(.'ts,  more  would  be  accomplished  for  the  innne- 
diate  enlightenment  and  morality  of  mankind,  than 
has  been  dotie  by  the  ellorts  of  the  boldest  and 
mightiest  reformers. 

F^iit  I  forbear  proceeding  with  this  portion  of  the 
subject,  and  shall,  therefore,  commence  at  once  with 
the  Tnlluence  of  the  Bible  during  the  Christian  era. 
This  will  refer,  more  particularly,  to  the  New  Tes- 
mament. 

Solemnly  and  distinctly,  then,  do  I  aver,  that  that 
influence  has  been  most  pcrniciovs.  It  has  occasion- 
ed more  division,  strife,  and  sectarianism  among  men, 
and,  as  a  consequence,  more  enmity,  intolerance,  and 
bloodshed,  than  any  other  single  cause  during  the 
same  period.  This  is  a  bold  and  unqualified  asser- 
tion, and  requires  strong  and  distinct  evidence  in  its 
confirmation.  This  I  shall  render,  by  taking  a  re- 
View  of  the  progress  of  Christianity  from  the  time  of 
Christ  to  the  present  age. 

We  find  in  the  New  Testament  itself,  that  so  early 
as  during  the  lifetime  of  Christ,  '-envyings  and  jeal- 
ousies "  were  growing  up  amongst  his  disciples;  nay, 
even  amongst  the  apostles.  In  Mark,  c.  ix.,  and 
liuke,  c.  xxii.,  we  are  told  that  they  "disputed 
among  themselves  who  should  be  the  greatest ;  "  and 
in    Matt.,    c.    xx.,    that    they    were    ambitious,    and 


INFLUENCE    OF    THE    BIBLE    ON    SOCIETY. 


223 


expressed  their  resentment  against  each  other.  In 
Mark,  c.  x.,  we  read  that  James  and  John  were 
anxious  of  being  distinguished,  by  having  the  privi- 
lege to  sit  on  the  right  and  left  hand  of  Christ  in  his 
glory  :  and  that  the  remaining  ten,  when  they  heard 
it,  "  began  to  be  much  displeased  with  James  and 
John." 

Soon  after  the  death  of  .Tesus,  we  are  informed  by 
Paul,  in  1  Cor.,  c.  i.,  v.  11,  12,  that  bitter  contentions 
had  sprung  up  among  the  Christians.  He  says, 
"  For  it  hath  been  declared  to  me,  my  brethren,  by 
them  who  are  in  the  house  of  Chloe,  that  there  are 
contentions  amongst,  you.  Now,  this  I  say,  that 
every  one  of  you  saith  I  am  of  Paul,  and  I  of  Ap- 
pollos,  and  1  of  Cephas,  and  I  of  Christ ;  "  and  inc. 
lii.,  v.  3,  he  remarks,  "  For  ye  are  yet  carnal,  for 
whereas  there  is  among  you  envying  and  strife^  and 
divisions;  are  ye  not  carnal  and  walk  as  men?" 
In  c.  vi.,  V.  0,  8,  he  again  observes,  "  Brother  goeth 
to  law  with  brother,  and  that  before  the  unbelievers;  " 
"nay,  you  do  wrongs  and  defraud^  that  yonr  breth- 
7^en.'^  But  Paul  entirely  forgot  to  tell  them  of  his 
own  squabbles.  He  could  preach  charity  and  for- 
bearance pretty  elo(|uently,  but  like  many  other 
Christians,  forgot  to  practice  it.  In  Acts,  c.  xv.,  v. 
3G-10,  a  very  edifying  quarrel  is  reported  between 
him  and  his  brother  apostle,  Barnabas.  "  The  con- 
tention between  them,''  says  the  story,  "  was  so 
sharpy  that  they  departed  asunder  one  from  the  oth- 
er." It  is  supposed  that  the  real  cause  of  this  mem- 
orable rupture  was  a  difference  of  opinion  between 
Paul  and  Barnabas,  as  to  the  crucifixion  of  Christ. 
Paul  maintained  that  Christ  was  crucified,  and  Bar- 
nabas that  it  was  .Judas,  and  not  Clirist. 

Those  acquainted  with  ecclesiastical  history  will 
be  aware  that  so  early  as  during  the  first  century, 
the  Christians  were  split  up  into  many  petty  sects, 
all  of  which  spit  eternal  damnation  at  each  otlier 
with  the  most  Christian  malignity.     One  party  as- 


224 


INFLUENCE    OF    THE    BIBLE    ON    SOCIETY. 


serted  that  Christ  was  a  mere  man,  another  that  he 
was  a  divine  character  ;  some  admitting  his  resurrec- 
tion, others  denying  it ;  some  supporting  the  story  of 
the  "miraculous  conception,"'  and  others  repudiating 
it.  Paul,  the  champion  of  tlie  divinity  of  Christ,  was 
regarded  as  an  impostor  hy  the  Nazarenes  and  the 
Ehionites,  and  his  Epistles  were  esteemed  as  "idle 
tales  and  uninspired  reveries."  "'^J'he  Corinthians," 
also  says  Epiphanius,  "had  the  Acts  of  the  Apos- 
tles with  various  additions,  in  which  Paul  is  accused 
of  the  artifices  oi  {x  false  prophet."  Bishop  Marsh,  in 
his  famous  Lectures,  alluding  to  the  division  amongst 
the  early  disciples,  says,  "  So  numerous  were  heretics 
(meaning  Christians  of  different  opinions,)  in  the 
first  and  second  ages,  that  all  the  primitive  Christians 
seem  to  have  been  included  under  one,  or  other  de- 
nomination of  heresy,"  showing  that  at  that  primitive 
period,  division,  sectarianism,  and  intolerance,  had 
followed  from  the  dissemination  of  the  dark,  incon- 
gruous dogmas  of  the  Christian  Scriptures. 

In  the  second  century,  a  violent  dispute  arose 
among  the  Cliristian  churches,  as  to  the  time  when 
Easter  was  to  be  observed.  One  division  of  the 
church — the  eastern — alleged  that  it  should  be  held 
on  one  day;  the  other  —  the  western — on  another 
day ;  the  former  quoting  their  authority  John  and 
Philip,  the  latter  Peter  and  Paul.  This  celebrated 
dispute  occasioned  much  cruel  persecution.  Victor, 
the  Roman  prelate,  excommunicated  all  the  eastern 
churches — cursed  them  as  heretics,  and  denounced 
all  intercourse  with  them.  Thus,  by  the  anathema 
of  this  "man  of  God,"  were  the  people  of  the  eastern 
entirely  dissevered  from  those  of  the  western  world, 
each  party  looking  upon  the  other  as  enemies,  and 
fostering  the  most  implacable  animosity  —  and  all 
through  a  silly  story  recorded  in  the  New  Testament! 

Early  in  the  third  century,  a  most  puerile,  though 
inveterate  controversy,  was  started  among  Christians 
as  to  the  nature  of  Christ.     This  controversy,  which 


INFLUENCE    OF    THE    BIBLE    ON    SOCIETY. 


225 


lasted  for  several  centuries,  raged  occasionally  with 
the  most  bitter,  and  brutal  animosity,  and  did  not 
terminate  until  the  lives  of,  at  least,  300,000  human 
beings  had  been  sacrificed  in  the  contention.  Euse- 
bius  informs  us  that  Theodorit,  Sabellius,  Paulus, 
Samasateinus,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  and  other  eminent 
"Christians,"  were  excommunicated  by  the  dominant 
faction  for  their  heterodox  notions  upon  this  subject. 
Well  might  the  Rev.  Mr.  Brown,  in  his  Defence  of 
Revelation,  declare,  that  "To  heretricate,  schisma- 
ticate  and  damn  one  another,  it  must  be  owned,  is  in 
a  manner,  peculiar  to  Christians.  Heathens  had  too 
imperfect  and  uncertain  notions  of  a  future  state,  to 
show,  in  this  manner,  mutual  hatred." 

It  was,  not,  hovvrever,  till  the  fourth  century,  when 
Christians  liad  acquired  political  power,  that  the  ani- 
7HUS  of  this  religious  scheme  was  manifested  in  its 
genuine  purity.  No  sooner  was  Constantine,  the  Em- 
peror of  Rome,  converted  to  Christianity,  and  fairly 
imbued  with  the  Christian  spirit,  than  he  was  pre- 
vailed upon  by  the  Christian  hierarchy,  to  institute  the 
most  shameful  and  inhuman  persecutions,  not  only 
against  the  heathens,  but  the  heterodox  of  their  own 
religion.  Milner,  the  pious  author  of  the  "Church 
History,"  cannot  but  admit,  that  "  the  Christian  world 
was  noic  the  scene  of  animosity  and  contention." 

At  the  time  of  Constantine's  ascension  to  the  throne 
of  Rome,  there  was  a  violent  contention  among  the 
Christians  upon  the  subject  of  the  Godhead.  The 
substance  of  this  famous  controversy,  out  of  which 
sprang  the  doctrine  of  the  Trinity,  was  briefly  this. — 
One  party,  headed  by  Alexander,  Bishop  of  Alexan- 
dria,  maintained  that  '•'•God  is  always,  and  the  Son 
always,  the  same  time  the  Father^  the  same  time  the 
Son.  The  Son  co-exists  with  God,  iinbe^ttenhj^  be- 
ing cv(ir  begotten,  being  vnbcgottenly  begotten  !  "  The 
other  party,  headed  by  Arian,  the  presbyter  of  Alex- 
ander, asserted,  that  "  there  was  a  time  when  there 
was  no  Son  of  God^  and  that  he,  who  before  was  not, 


22G 


INFLUENCE    OF    THE    BIULE    ON    SOCIETY. 


afterwards    existed,    being  made,   whenever  he   was 
made  just  as  any  man  whatever .'' 

This  silly  dispute  gave  rise  to  the  most  unseemly 
squabbles   in  the  church.     Dr.   Chandler,   in  lus  His- 
tory  of    Persecution,  edited   by  Ainiore,  states    that 
'•  the  bishops  of  each  side  liad  already  interested  the 
people  in  their  quarrel,   and  heated  them  into  such  a 
ra-e    they  attacked  and  fought  with,  wounded    and 
destroyed    each  other,   and  acted  with  such  madness 
as  to  commit  the  greatest  impieties  tor  the  sake  ol  or- 
thodoxy, and  arrived  at  that  pitch  of  insolence,^  as   o 
olTer   ffreat  indignities  to  the  imperial  images.        He 
concludes,  by  remarking,  that  tlicir  -animosities  were 
too    furious   to  be   appeased.''     The  learned  br.  Mo- 
sheim    himself  admits  that  "it  would  be  dilhcult  to 
determine  which  of  the  two  exceeded  most  the  bounds 
of  probity,  charity,  and  moderation.  '     At  last,   in  the 
year  325,  Constantine  convened  a  council  ot  tlie  Chris- 
tian  functionaries,  distinguished  in  ecclesiastical  his- 
tory, as  the  Comicil  of  Nice,  for  the  purpose  ot  settling 
this  disgraceful  schism.     Such  was  the   hunuhtu  and 
forbearance  displayed  by  these  "Christians     on  this 
memorable   occasion,   that  the  riot  and  uproar  which 
existed  during  the  whole  of  their  sittings,  would  have 
disgraced   a  pot-hovse.     Theodorit    says,  "  Ihose  ot 
the    Ariaii    party    were  subtle  and  crafty,   and,   like 
shelves  under   water,  concealed    their  wickedness.— 
Amongst  the  orthodox  party,  some  were  oi  ^  quarret- 
lin^     malicious  temper,   and  accused    several  ot  the 
bishops,  and  then  presented  their  accusatory  libels  to 
the  emperor."      Tindal  states,   in  his  ''•Rights  of  the 
Church  -  p.  195,   "that  if  those  accusations  and  libels 
whicli  the  bishops,  at  the  council  of  Nice,  gave  in  of 
one  another  to  the  Emperor,  were  now  extant    m  all 
probability  we   should  have  rolls  of  scandal,   that  lew 
would  have  much  reason  to  boast  of  the  first  a^ccu- 
menical  council,  where  with  such  heat,  passion,  and 
fury    the   bishops   fell  foul  of  one  another.'      A  rich 
scene  for  bishops  !    How  characteristic  of  the  system  ! 


INFLUENCE    OF    THE    BIBLE    ON    SOCIETY. 


227 


J 


The  issue  of  this  disorderly  assembly  was,  that  the 
Arians  were  defeated.  The  Emperor,  in  order  to  estab- 
lish the  doctrine  of  the  opposite  party,  issued  an  edict 
against  the  Arians,  as  well  as  heretics  and  infidels 
of  all  kinds.  The  edict  declares,  as  given  in  Socra- 
tes's  Ecclesiastical  History,  Book  1,  c.  vii.,  "More- 
over, we  thought  good,  that  if  there  can  be  found,  ex- 
tant, any  work  or  book  compiled  by  Arius,  the  same 
should  be  burnt  to  ashes,  so  that  not  only  his  damna- 
ble doctrines  may  thereby  be  rooted  out,  but,  also, 
that  no  relique  thereof  may  remain  unto  posterity. — 
This,  also,  we  straiglitly  command  and  charge,  that 
if  any  man  be  found  to  hide  or  conceal  any  book  made 
by  Arius,  and  not  immediately  bring  forth  the  same 
book,  and  deliver  it  up  to  be  burned,  that  the  said 
ofiender,  for  so  doing,  shall  die  the  death.  For  as 
soon  as  he  is  taken,  our  pleasure  is,  that  his  head  be 
stricken  olf  from  his  shoulders.  Cod  keep  you  in  Ids 
tuition !  ''  Indeed,  I  think  so.  What  a  sample  of 
Christian  charity  !  How  honorable  to  Constantine, 
and  his  priestly  advisers  ! 

O  !  what  good  man  does  not  tremble  with  horror  at 
such  monstrous  intolerance,  and  regret  the  day  that  a 
book  should  have  come  into  existence,  about  the  dog- 
mas of  which,  such  atrocities  have  been  perpetrated  ? 
Well  might  the  l^^mpcror  Julian  declare,  (vv^ho  was  at 
one  time  a  Christian,  tliough  he  subsequently  became 
a  Pagan,  and  one  of  the  best  Emperors  that  ever 
reigned  in  Home,)  that  "he  found  by  experience,  that 
even  beasts  were  not  so  cruel  to  men,  as  the  generality 
of  Christians  were  to  one  another."  The  Rev.  Dr. 
Chandler,  in  his  History,  exclaims,  "  What  confu- 
sions and  calamities — what  ruins  and  desolations — 
what  rapines  and  murders  —  have  been  introduced 
into  the  world,  under  the  pretended  authorit}^  of  Christ, 
and  of  supporting  and  propagating  Christianity!  " 

Following  this  religion  through  succeeding  periods, 
scenes  of  intolerance,  violence,  and  cruelty,  present 
themselves  to  our  view,  so  unspeakably  horrible,  that 

I 


228 


INFLUENCE    OF    THE    BIBLE    ON    SOCIETY. 


it  sickens  me  to  record  them.  In  the  fifth  century, 
the  church  was  distracted  by  a  schism  occasioned  by 
the  heresy  of  Nestorius.  It  consisted  in  liis  declaring 
that  the  Virgin  Mary  was  not  the  mother  of  God ;  that 
she  was  "  only  a  woman,  and,  ther^'fore,  God  could 
not  be  born  of  her."  "I  cannot,"  says  he,  "call  him 
God,  who  once  was  not  above  two  or  three  months 
old."  He,  therefore,  would  only  consent  to  call  her 
the  "  mother  of  Christ."  This  doctrine  was  consider- 
ed so  frightfully  heretical,  that  a  council  was  called 
at  Ephesus,  in  Greece,  to  suppress  it.  This  meeting 
proved  such  a  boisterous  one,  that  Mr.  Tindal  informs 
us,  in  his  work  before  quoted,  that  ''  Dioscorns,  Bishop^ 
of  Alexander,  cuffed  and  kicked  Flavins,  Patriarch  of 
Constantinople,  with  that  fury,  that  three  days  after 
he  died."     Mild  bishops,  truly  ! 

The  decision  of  this  Synod  was  against  Nestorius, 
which  was  "  the  occasion  of  irreconcilable  hatreds 
amongst  the  bishops  and  people,  who  were  so  enraged 
against  each  other,  that  there  was  no  passing,  with 
any  safety,  from  one  province  or  ciiy  to  another,  be- 
cause every  one  pursued  his  neighbor  as  his  enemy, 
and  revenged  themselves  upon  one  another,  under  a 
pretence  of  ecclesiastical  zeal !  "  Mosheim  tells  us 
that  "the  Greeks  called  this  council  'a  band  or  as- 
sembly of  robbers,'  to  signify  that  everything  was 
carried  in  it  by  fraud  or  violence  ;  and  many  councils, 
indeed,  both  in  this  and  the  following  ages,  are  equally 
entitled  to  the  same  dishonorable  appellation." 

Towards  the  close  of  this  century,  another  Synod 
was  called  at  Chalcedon,  to  consider  the  heresy  of 
Dioscorns,  who  had  asserted  diat  "Jesus  Christ  con- 
sisted of  two  natures,  before  his  union  or  incarnation, 
but  that  after  this  he  had  one  nature  only."  The 
discussion  of  this  truly  momentous  question  was  so 
violent  and  obstreporous,  that  the  holy  fathers  could 
no  longer  contain  themselves,  and  cried  out  in  fury, 
^^  Damn  Dioscorns  —  banish  Dioscorns — Christ  haih 
deposed  Dioscorns  !  "     Choice  language  for  a  pmis 


i) 


INFLUENCE    OF    THE    BIBLE    ON    SOCIETY. 


229 


assembly,  an  assembly  called  together  to  decide  upon 
"heavenly  truths!"  John,  in  the  Rev.,  c.  vii.,  tells 
us  that  there  was  silence  in  heaven  just  for  the  space 
of  hair  an  hour,  but  had  there  been  quietness  in  these 
noisy  conventions  for  only  five  minutes,  I  apprehend, 
it  would  have  been  a  phenomenon. 

Continuing  our  history,  we  learn  from  Mosheim, 
Du  Pin,  Tindal,  and  other  Christian  writers,  that 
during  the  sixth,  seventh,  and  eighth  century,  more 
councils  were  called  to  discuss  various  scriptural  to- 
pics, all  of  which  were  of  the  same  tumultuous  cha- 
racter, and  terminated  in  the  bitter  persecution  of  the 
discomfitted  faction.  At  the  first  council,  held  at 
Constantinople,  to  decide  upon  the  heresies  of  Origen, 
the  first  point  discussed  was,  "Whether  those  who 
were  dead,  (meaning  the  heretics,)  were  to  be  anathe- 
matised or  accursed  ? "  And,  such  was  the  religious 
hatred  to  all  heretics,  that  they  not  only  excommuni- 
cated and  cursed  all  the  living,  but  they  actually 
wanted  to  dig  into  the  very  graves  of  the  dead,  and 
curse  the  bones  that  were  rotting  in  them !  One  of 
the  priests,  named  JMUychins.  "  looked  with  contempt 
on  the  fathers  for  their  hesitation  in.  so  plain  a  matter, 
and  told  them  that  there  needed  no  deliberation  on  the 
subject,  for  that  King  Josias,  formerly  did  not  only 
destroy  the  idolatrous  priests  who  were  living,  but 
dug  also  those  who  had  been  dead  long  before,  out  of 
their  graves."  ^Miis  settled  the  dispute  at  once,  and 
Kutychius  was  made  a  bishop  for  this,  his  skill  in 
Scripture  and  casuistry. 

Towards  the  end  of  the  eighth  century,  (the  year 
787,)  a  council  was  convened  to  decide,  whether 
images  should  be  set  up  in  churches ;  and,  after  it 
was  decided  in  the  aflirmative,  they  added,  as  was 
their  usual  custom,  '*  damnation  to  all  heretics — dam- 
nation on  the  council  that  warred  against  venerable 
nnages — the  Holy  Trinity  hath  deposed  them." 

The  disputes,  among  Christians,  upon  this  con- 
temptible question,  was  the  cause  of  a  civil  war  in 
20 


230 


INFLUENCE    OF    THE    BIBLE    ON    SOCIETY. 


the  islands  of  the  Archipelago,  under  Leo  TV.,  and  oc- 
casioned throughout  Christendom,  before  its  termina- 
tion, the  death  of  at  least  50,000  human  beings. 

We  have  now  arrived  at  the  tenth  century.  We 
shall  hastily  pass  from  this  period  to  the  sixteenth,  m 
order  that  we  may  show,  that  after  the  Reformation, 
under  the  Reformed  church,  among  Protestants  as 
well  as  Catholics,  the  Bible  was  the  cause  of  the  same 
dreadful  evils,  as  characterized  the  dark  ages.  I  may 
remark,  that  from  the  tenth  to  the  sixteenth  century, 
the  Christian  world  was  one  frightful  scene  of  intole- 
rance and  blood.  Europe  was  a  moral  wilderness, 
resounding  with  the  savage  bowlings  of  the  bigot  and 
persecutor.     Yes, — 

''  Earth  irroaned  beneath  rclii,non'.s  iron  age, 

And  priests  dared  babblo  of  a  God  ot  peace. 

E'en  whil(}  their  hands  were  red  with  liiiihless  blood, 

Murdering  the  whik;,  uprooting  every  germ 

Of  truth,  exterminating,  spoiHiiir  all. 

Making  the  earth  a  slaughter-house." 

During  this  interval  were  enacted  the  bloody  trage- 
dies of  the  Crusades,  the  Inquisitions,  the  massacre  of 
the  Waldcnses,  tlie  Albigenscs,  and  other  butcheries, 
loo  horrible  to  enumerate;  and  all  for  the  "glory  of 
God,-'  and  the  vindication  of  his  blessed  Word  !  "  \\  e 
now  approach  the  glorious  Reformation.  Calvin,  one 
of  the  principal  actors  upon  the  Christian  stage  at  this 
period,  no  sooner  obtained  power  and  influence,  than 
he  be^an,  like  the  Catholics,  to  persecute  those  whom 
he  deemed  heretical.  He  caused  Michael  Scrvetus  to 
be  burned  in  Geneva.  He  wrote  a  Declaration  to 
maintain  the  "  true  faith,"  in  Avhich  he  states,  "  it  was 
law  fill  to  punish  heretics,  and  that  this  icrctch,  (mean- 
ing Servetus,)  was ///.s'/Zy  executed."  He  also  perse- 
cuted Castello,  in  a  manner  so  rude  and  brutal,  that 
he  calls  him  "  a  blasphemer,  reviler.  malicious,  hark- 
inrr  dog,  full  of  ignorance,  beastiality,  and  impudence, 
an'impostor,  a  base  corrupter  of  the  sacred  writings, 
a  mocker  of  God,  a  contemner  of  all  religion,  an   im- 


INFLUENCE    OF    THE    BIBLE    ON    SOCIETY. 


231 


pudent  fellow,  a  filthy  dog,  a  knave,  an  impious, 
lewd,  crooked-minded,  vagabond,  beggarly  rogue." 
Charitable  .lohn  Calvhi !  Glorious  Refor?ner,  indeed  ! 
But,  listen  to  the  furious  rage  and  vindictive  intole- 
rance of  the  worthy  follower  and  coadjutor  of  Calvin, 
John  Knox,  the  Reformer  of  Scotland.  I  take  the  fol- 
lowing from  the  '•  Edinburgh  Magazine  and  Review," 
for  July,  1771.  It  is  an  extract  from  one  of  John's 
prayers  against  the  Catholics.  Addressing  himself  to 
God  against  his  enemies,  he  charitably  exclaims, 
"  Repress  the  pride  of  these  blood-thirsty  tyrants,  con- 
sume tJicni  in  thine  anger,  according  to  the  reproach 
which  they  have  laid  against  thy  holy  name;  pour 
forth  thy  vengeance  upon  them,  and  let  our  eyes  be- 
liold  the  blood  of  the  saints  required  at  their  hands. — 
Delay  not  thy  vengeance,  O  Lord,  but  let  death  devour 
them  in  haste.  •  Let  the  earth  swallow  them  up,  and 
let  them  go  down  quick  to  Jicll^  for  there  is  no  hope  of 
their  amendment.  Tlie  fear  and  reverence  of  thy 
holy  name  is  quite  banished  from  their  liearts ;  and, 
therefore,  yet,  again,  O  Lord,  consume  them — consume 
them  in  thine  anger  !  "  O  !  what  a  Christian  ! — what 
a  "  Reformer  !  "  What  is  the  language  of  Luther^ 
the  great  father  of  the  '•  Glorious  Reformation,"  when 
speakhig  of  the  Catholics  7  Listen — ''The  Papists 
are  all  asses,  put  them  in  whatever  form  you  please, 
boiled,  roasted,  baked,  fried,  skinned,  beat,  hashed, 
they  are  always  the  same — asses.  The  Pope  was 
born  out  of  the  devil's  posteriors,  full  of  devils,  lies, 
blasphemies,  and  idolatries;  he  is  Anti-Christ,  the 
robber  of  churches,  the  ravisher  of  virgins,  the  great- 
est of  pimps,  the  governor  of  Sodom." 

What  blackguardism  for  a  Christian,  and  a  ''i2e- 
former  !  "  When  the  Protestant  priesthood  had  eman- 
cipated themselves  from  the  iron  yoke  of  Popery, 
it  was  not  long  ere  they  established  a  despotism 
equally  brutal  and  iniquitous.  All  Dissenters  were 
persecuted  with  as  much  inveteracy,  as  under  tlie 
Catholic  hierarchy.  During  the  bloody  reign  of 
Henry  VIII.,  an  act  was  passed,  ''abolishing  diversity 


232 


INFLUENCE  OF   THE  BIBLE  ON   SOCIETY. 


of  opinion  in  certain  articles  concerning  the  Clirislian 
religion."  Ky  tliis  enactment,  it  was  enforced  that 
all  Dissenters,  for  the  first  offence,  were  to  be  impris- 
oned dnring  the  king's  pleasnre;  and,  for  the  second, 
to  suffer  death,  (Xeal's  History  of  the  Puritans,  vol. 
i.  p.  2.)  Under  this  law,  many  dissenting  sects  were 
persecuted  in  the  most  inhuman  manner — the  Ana- 
baptists, the  Brownists,  the  Puritans,  the  Uuakers, 
and  otiier  sectaries  experienced  the  displeasure  of  the 
Orthodox,  and,  of  course,  were  subjected  to  all  kinds 
of  pains  and  penalties. 

The  Ibllowing  was  the  form  of  abjuration  put  to 
the  Anabaptists,  which  they  were  obliged  to  make, 
or  be  burnt : — "  Whi-reas  we,  being  seduced  by  the 
devil,  the  spirit  of  error,  and  false  teacher,  have  fallen 
into  these  most  damnahle  and  dclcKlable  heresies,  that 
Christ  took  not  flesh  of  the  Virj^iu  Mary,  that  thr  in- 
fants of  the  faithtul  should  not  be  bapti/ed  ;  and  that 
a  Christian  man  may  not  be  a  ma.L^istrate,  or  bear 
the  sword  and  otlice  of  authority;  and  thai  it  is  not 
lawful  for  a  Christian  man  to  taUe  an  oath  ;  now,  by 
the  grace  of  God,  and  by  the  assi.stauce  of  good  riiMl 
learned  ministers  of  Christ's  dinn^li,  I  nnderMuliJ 
the  same  to  be  most  danmable  and  doietilal>i-('  here- 
sies, and  do  ask  (iod,  Ixifore  hxs^  ohnrcb,  liicrey  for 
my  said  former  errors,  and  do  for^ako,  rrcmil,  ;ind 
renounce  them  ;  and  I  abjure  tlinn  fnini  the  l»ottum 
of  my  heart,    protesting   I   certainly  I  c  Hie  ciwi- 

trary.  And,  further,  I  confess  llie  trhJc  ihjf:(fitUf 
established  and  published  in  the  Clmrch  of  llii^dcind, 
and  also  that  which  is  received  in  \\w  Dutch  Chiirrli, 
in  London,  is  found  true,  and  according  lo  Ood*8 
Word,  whereunto  in  all  things  I  .submit  Tiiy.tnli;  nnd 
will  be  most  gladly  a  mendier  of  tlio  DiitcJi  Chnri'li, 
and  henceforth  utterly  abomiuaiiiii5  and  fon^aking 
all  and  every  Aiiabaptiscal  errors/^ — Crosby,  voL  l. 
p.  68. 

Neal  states  (vol.  i.  p.  540,)  that  oiKi  l^ciBhtoii,  for 
writing  a  book,  in  which  prelacy  was  uetiounrcd 
as  ''  Anti-Scriptitral,"  was  condenjiicd  by  the  High 


INFLUENCE    OF    THE    BIBLE    ON    SOCIETY. 


233 


Commissioner  to  pay  a  heavy  fine,  and  then  to  be 
set  upon  the  ])illory  a  convenient  time,  and  have  one 
of  his  ears  cut  off,  one  side  of  his  nose  slit,  and  be 
branded  in  the  face  with  a  double  S,  and  then  to  be 
carried  back  lo  prison ;  and,  after  a  few  days,  be 
pilloried  again  in  Cheapside,  and  be  then  likewise 
whipped,  and  the  other  side  of  his  nose  slit,  and  be 
then  shut  up  in  close  confinement  for  the  remainder 
of  his  life  !  "  Bisliop  Land,  on  hearing  this  decision, 
pulled  off  his  cap,  and  returned  (iod  thaidvs. 

The  celebrated  Richard  Baxter  was  treated  in  the 
most  infamous  manner  so  lately  as  .lames  IL  At 
his  trial,  Judge  Jeffries  addressed  him  as  follows  : — 
*'  Richard !  Richard  !  dost  thou  think  we  will  hear 
thee  poi.son  the  Court  .^  Richard,  thou  art  an  old  fel- 
low, and  an  old  kimv*.* — thou  hast  written  books 
onow  lo  lo^d  a  carl,  every  mic  n*  full  of  Mrditioii,  I 
niiL,'hl  say.  oi  treason^  \vs  cm  c-^jg  is  lull  of  imxii;  Iwdst 
ihoii  l>ccji  ifhlpt  out  of  thy  writinL^-trad<!  funy  years 
ago,  it  had  boon  \\  Thnn  pn^tciulrst  to  be  a 

iiiraclicr  of  the  uxis|x^l  of  |»eace:  cis  llioti  liast  one 
QOt  in  the  grave,  it  i«  time  tor  thire  to  Ixr^nn  tu  think 
what  a<'conjit  iliou  intendosi  to  give-,  liui^  lojivc  iIiih* 
to  t]iy5x*lf,  an<l  I  noo  iImki  will  go  on  a»  thou  hasi 
l»02Nn ;  Unt,  by  the  ffriicc  of  (to<t,  1  will  look  after 
lliw.  I  know  iImmi  Iwsi  a  i  ;  y  party,  and  '  sec* 
a  s;n!at  many  of  the  iHroclicrhtxxi  m  comers,  awc^iiing 
to  fcc  wlmt  will  Ijceonic  of  their  wiii/A/y  don,  :uid  si 
d«Ki<Mr  of  ilio  party  at  thy  elbow;  hue,  by  ihe  gmce 
of  Almighty  Cmk],  i  will  crn»li  you  all.'* 

'Hie  K<:v.  .Mr.  R<  n,  in  hi.s  l<x!tnr»  on  Xmicoii. 

fonnily,  calculalcjt  that  •'Clarendon,  and  tl>e  hi.sho)xc 
in  llic  reign  of  C*hiirlrs  II.  uIoik!.  imprisoned  and 
imirderctl  KKJO  Diwi'iiicr*,  rninod  tlinnsinids  of  fanii- 
lk»,  drove  multitude:!  abroad,  ainl  rolibed  thcni  iA 
from  twelve  to  fonrtei^Ji  niillHHi.s  of  jwojieriy.'' 

Hni  the  Di»cnicrs  llK?ni.5clve5J  were  jK.'n»eeutor« 
when  tliey  acqniml  j)o>ver. 

The  Ptuilans,  dnring  the  ContmociweaUh,  liavitig 

20^ 


234  INFLUENCE    OF    THE    BIBLE    ON    SOCIETY. 

obtained  predominance,  expelled  from  their  livings  no 
less  than  10,UUU  Church  of  England   clergymen,  and 
treated  many  most  barbarously.     Their    holy  spleen 
extciidcd  to  all  sects  who  did  not  t'^^»'^^;^^f  ,^  J^^^^T 
hcved.     Crosby  informs  us,  (vol   i-  P-   l^^-lOU,)  Ihat^ 
on  the  2Gth  of  May,  10 15,  the   Lord   Mayor,  Court  ot 
Aldermen,  and  (/ommon  (Jouncil  of  London,  Ff  ^"t" 
ed    a   petition    to   Parliament,    commonly    called   tlie 
'' City  Remonstrance,"  in  which    they   desned,      that 
some  strict  and  speedy  cause  might  be  taken   lor  the 
suppressing  all   private   and   separate    congregations; 
that  all  Anabaptists,  Brownists,  heretics,  schismatics 
blasphemers,  and  all  other  sectaries,  who  coniovmed 
not   to   the  public    discipline,    established     or    to    be 
established  by   l^arliament,    might   be   lully   declared 
asainst,  and  some  etfectual  course  settled  lor  proceed- 
ing against  such  persons,  and    that   no   person  disai- 
fected  to  Presbyterian  government  might  be  emp  oyecl 
in   anv  place  6(  trust."     This    "  remonstrance     was 
supported  by  the  whole  Scottish  nation,  who  beseech- 
ed  the  English  Puritans  to  proceed  boldly,  and  cease 
not   their   "labor  of  love,"    till   the   three   kingdcrns 
should  be  united   in    one    faith    and    worship.      1  he 
(General  Assembly  of  "divines  "   at  Westminster,  lor- 
-ottmcT   how  they  had  formerly   smarted    under  the 
fash  of  persecution,   declared,    that  "  grantmg  ^/er^- 
tion  would   he  opening  a  gap  to  all  sects   and  make 
a   perpetual    division    in   the    church."     In   a  woric, 
published  by  this  "Assembly,"  we  find  the  following 
ehoice  morsel  of  priestly  liberality,  "Whatsoever  doc- 
trine is  contrary  to   godliness,   and   opens   a  door   to 
liberalism  and  profaueness,  you  must  reject   as  a  soul 
poison,  such   is  the  doctrine  of  an  universal  toleration 
in    religion."       These    enlightened    sentiments    were 
reciprocated   in   a  publication    issued  in    Lancashire, 
abDiit  the  same  period,  called  the  "  Harmonious  As- 
sent of  the  Lancashire  ministers  with   their  brethren 
ill    Ix)ndon."      The   authors   of  this   precious    work 
affirm,   unbluslnngly,   that   "A  toleration   would    be 


INFLUENCE    OF    THE    BIBLE    ON    SOCIETY. 


235 


putting  a  sword  in  a  madman's  hand ;  a  cup  of 
poison  into  the  hand  of  a  child;  a  letting  loose  of 
madmen  with  firebrands  in  their  hands,  and  appoint- 
ing a  city  of  refuge  in  men's  souls  for  the  Devil  to 
fly  to;  a  laying  a  stumbling  block  before  the  blind; 
a  ])roclaimiug  liberty  to  the  wolves  to  come  into 
Christ's  fold  to  prey  upon  the  lambs;  neither  would 
it  be  to  provide  for  tender  conscience,  but  take  all 
conscience."  Such  were  tlie  sentiments  of  Dissenters, 
when  in  poicc7\  How  characteristic  of  Presbyterian 
consistency  !  Liberty  of  conscience,  when  they  could 
not  enjoy  it,  was  a  glorious  thing ;  but  when  they 
had  obtained  that  liberty,  and  otJicrs  wislied  to  enjoy 
it,  "  a  toleration  would  be  putting  a  sword  in  a  mad- 
man's hand,"  "  appointing  a  city  of  refuge  in  men's 
souls  for  the  Deed  to  fly  toP  It  was  in  America, 
however,  that  the  Puritans  exhibited  tlieir  purity  to 
the  greatest  advantage.  Robinson,  Howitt,  and  other 
historians  inform  us,  that  they  instituted  the  most 
brutal  enactments,  against  the  (iuakers  in  particidar. 
The  colonies  of  Massachusetts  passed  a  law,  prohibit- 
ing Quakers  coming  into  the  colony,  imposing  the 
penalty  of  bcniish'iiiciit  for  the  first  offence,  and  of 
death  upon  such  as  should  return  after  banishment. 
A  succession  of  most  sanguinary  laws  were  enacted 
against  them,  such  as  imprisonmod^  cutting  off  the 
ears,  boring  the  tongne  icdh  red-hot  irons,  i^^c.  Four 
(Quakers  were  actually  executed  for  returning  after 
banishment.  If  we  consider  the  eflects  resulting  from 
the  introduction  of  our  J^ible  religion  into  our  colonies 
generally,  we  shall  find  it  has  produced  the  same 
strife,  sectarianism,  and  bloodshed  as  at  home.  Did 
time  permit,  1  could  refer  you  to  many  most  horrible 
and  revolting  facts.  I  must  content  myself  with  only 
one  or  two  examples.  Mr.  Garrison,  the  distinguish- 
ed abolitionist,  in  a  speech  delivered  at  the  Anti- 
Slavery  Convention,  held  in  lioudon  some  time  ago, 
mentions  the  following  horrible  specimen  of  "  Chris- 
tian civilization."     He  gives  an  extract  from  a  letter, 


Qon  INFLUENCE   OF   THE  BIBLE   ON  SOCIETY. 

written  by  Mr.  J.   Brown,   a  missionary  at  Liberia, 
Civins   an   account  of  a  recent  attack  of  300  na  ives 
npon  the   ]\letliodist   Missionary  Station  at  lliidding- 
ton      The  natives  had  been  exasperated  at   the  dog- 
matism of  the  Christian   priests.     I^he  letter  states, 
"  After  an  hour's  fighting,  the  assailants  were  repuls- 
ed, with  the   loss  of  their  leader  and   thirty   or  lorty 
iih'ii    whicli  achievement  rvas  ctfec/cd  chiefly  hy  two 
Mtthodist  missionaries,  and  two  native  converts.      V\  e 
were  awakened  in  our  town  by  the   firing  of  a  gun 
about  two  miles  from  us  ;  and,  while  we  were  musing 
on  what  it  could  mean,  we  were  again  alarmed  by 
the  voices  of  several  of  our  people  exclaiming.     War 
is  come!   war  is  come!'     Brother   Simon   Harris  go 
out  of  bed  immediatelv,  and  went  out  in  town.     J>ut 
he  returned    in  one  minute,   and  told  me  to  be  out  ot 
bed  and   load  the   guns  for  war  was  at  hand.     I  im- 
mediatelv arose,  slipped  on   my  clothes,  and   was  on 
mv  knees  to   ask  (iod  to  help  us.     By  tliat  time  tlic 
eneniv  was  within  nuisket-shot  ot  the  mission-house 
Brother  Harris  went  down  and  gave  them  the  tirst 
shot,  and  was   answered  by   ten  or   twelve  muskets 
from  the  enemv,  while  I  was  loading  muskets  m  the 
chamber.     \n   loss  than  one  minute  they  were  run- 
ning np  and  down   the  picket  fence   about  three  rods 
from  the  house,  as  diick  as  bees  around  a  hive.     bro. 
Bennett   J )ormory  and  Brother  Harris  were   the  only 
two  who  stood  ill  front,  between  the  enemy  and  the 
lionse      Tiiey  both  stood  their  ground,  and  cut  them 
down  like  mowers  cutting  grass.     Meanwhile,  Bro 
Tarvis  Z.   Nichols  came   into  the  chamber  where  1 
was  loading  muskets  (for  we* had  eighteen  muskets 
in  the  chamber,  which  we   knew  would   go   at  every 
snap,  and  one  hundred  ready  made  cartridges   and  a 
ke-  of  powder,)  and  poured   a  stream  ot   lead  down 
iipmi  them  from  the  windows,  as   fast  as   two  boys 
could  hand  liim  loaded  muskets.     In  the  must  ot  all 
this,  the  enemy  broke  through  the  fence,  and  poured 
into  the  yard  like  bees.     Brothers  Hams  and  Dormo- 


INFLUENCE  OF  THE  BIBLE   ON   S0C1E^V^ 


237 


ry  now  retreated  to  the  door,  in  which  both  stood 
side  by  side,  about  two  rods  from  them,  with  two 
muskets  apiece,  throwing  buckshot  into  their  bowels, 

hearts,    and   brains,   like   a   tornado W  bile 

they  were  gathering  up  their  dead  to  take  off,  I  had 
the  best  chance  of  any  to  fire  into  the  groups.  But 
they  soon  slung  their  shattered  bodies,  and  went  off 
as  if  the  wicked  one  was  after  them.  •  The  engage- 
[meiit  continued  one  hour  and  twenty-two  minutes. 
After  they  were  gone,  we  went  out  on  the  battle 
ground ;  and.  although  they  had  carried  off  all  tlieir 
dead  except  three  big  slabsided  fellows,  yet  I  never 
saw  such  a  scene  before.  There  was  blood  and 
brains  in  every  direction.  The  path  on  which  tliey 
went  was  one  complete  gore  on  both  sides ;  yea,  it 
stood  in  puddles.  We  picked  up  their  fingers  by  the 
way-side." 

O!  and  this  is  pro7nulgatinf^  the  ^^ gospel! '^ — dis- 
seminating the  "  True  Word  !  "  —  "  enlightening  the 
heathen  !  "     Bah  ! 

One  more  specimen,  and  I  have  done.  Sir  Edward 
Belcher,  in  a  recent  work,  "  Voyages  Round  the 
World,"  1836 — 42,  speaking  of  the  condition  of  the 
natives  of  the  Sandwich  Islands,  says,  "  Their  labor 
is  demanded  for  the  church,  the  missionaries  having 
obtained  the  necessary  edict,  which  compels  the  na- 
tives to  labor  on  the  roofs,  to  procure  blocks  of  stone 
for  the  purpose  of  building  a  neio  church.  The  first 
duty  of  obtahiing  subsistence  for  their  families  was 
deemed  but  a  secondary  consideration.  If  they  should 
presume  to  do  so  on  Sunday,  their  punishment  was 
double  labor  the  ensuing  week."  "At  Tahiti,"  says 
Sir  Edward,  "  the  natives  are  compelled  to  frequent 
the  church."  Oh,  yes  !  ''  compel  them  to  come  in." — 
H\\^i  IS  eminently  Christian,  and  this  is  "spreading 
the  gospel  in  foreign  parts," /ord/z^f-  natives  to  sup- 
port Christianity. 

It  may  be  alleged,  however,  that  the  Bible  does  not 
sanction  such  persecution. 


238 


INFLUENCE    OF    THE    BIBLE    ON    SOCIETY. 


What  I  when  wc  are  told  in  Galatians,  c.  i.,  v.  8, 
that  "  though  we,  or  an  angel  from  heaven  preach 
any  other  gospel  unto  you  than  that  which  we  have 
preached  to  yon,  let  hbn  be  accursed.'^  are  wc  not  to 
say  that  it  sanctions  persecution'.^  When  we  are  told, 
in  c.  v.,  V.  12,  "I  would  they  were  even  cut  off  \v\\\ii\\ 
trouble  you,"  are  we  not  to  allirm  that  it  sanctions 
persecution?  When  we  are  told  in  Matthew,  c.  x.,  v. 
15,  '•  And  whosoever  ihall  not  receive  yon,  nor  liear 
your  words,  when  ye  depart  out  of  that  house  or  city, 
shake  otf  the  dnst  of  yonr  feet.  V'erily,  1  say  unto  you, 
it  shall  be  more  tolerable  for  the  land  of  Sodom  and 
Gomorrah  in  the  day  of  judgment  than  for  that  city," 
are  we  not  to  insist  that  it  sanctions  persecution? 

But  Christians  themselves  have  admitted  that  it 
sanctions  persecution.  Beza,  a  disthignished  (.'hristian 
author  of  the  fourth  century,  wrote  a  book  in  defence 
of  persecution,  and  quotes  some  of  the  very  passages 
1  have  just  read  to  you,  and  others  mentioned  in  my 
Tenth  Lecture. 

Bogarman,  the  President  of  the  Synod  of  Dart,  held 
in  the  eleventh  century,  translated  Heza's  book,  and 
recommended  it  to  tlie  magistrates,  which  recom- 
mendation was  adopted. 

But  I  may  be  told  that  Beza  was  a  Cathohc. — 
Then  listen  to  the  opinion  of  tlie  Rev.  W.  Fulke,  a 
distingnished  English  Protestant  clergyman  of  the 
seventeenth  century.  In  his  work  agahist  tlie  Papists, 
he  says,  "for  the  division  of  parishes,  excomnumica- 
tions,  suspensions,  solemnizing  of  marriages  with  the 
laws  thereof,  and  the  punishing  of  heretics  by  death, 
they  are  all  manifestly  proved  out  of  Scripture  !  !  !  " 

Let  me  now  come  nearer  home. 

What  are  the  effects  produced  by  the  dissemination 
of  this  book  in  our  own  age  I  Has  it  tended  to  unite 
mankind  ?  Has  it  bound  them  together  by  sweet  ties 
of  love  and  fraternity  ?  Has  it  made  men  brothers  ? 
Ah,  no  !  It  has  split  them  up  into  an  endless  number 
of  petty   sectaries,   and  sown,  in  plentiful  profusion, 


INFLUENCE    OF    THE    BIBLE    ON    SOCIETY. 


239 


the  bitter  seeds  of  discord  and  hatred.     This  I  will 
prove   by   showing    the    opinion   which   the   various 
Christian  sects  entertain  of  each  other.      "Calvinism, 
say  the  Unitarians,  "is  a  tremendous  doctrine,  which 
had  it  really  been  taught  by  Jesus  and  his  apostles, 
their  gospel  might  truly  have  been  denounced,  not  as 
the  doctrine  of  peace  and  good  will,  but  a  message  of 
wrath  and  injustice,  of  terror  and  despair."     It  was 
viewed   by  Dr.  Priestly,  not   only   "as  the   extrava- 
gance of  error,  but  as  a  mischievous  compound  of 
impiety  and  idolatry." — (Rev.  J.  Belsham's  discourse 
on  Dr.  Priestly.)     By  the  Arminian  Christians,  Cal- 
vinism is  represented  as  a  system,   which,   says  Dr. 
Jortin,  consists  "of  hmnan  creatures  without  liberty, 
doctrine  without  sense,  faith  without  reason,  and  a 
God  without  mercy.''     Mr.  Warren  declares  diat  "its 
frightful  demoralizing  errors  are  spreadhig  themselves 
like   a  black   mist  through  the  land,  blasting  every 
spiritual  joy,   withering  every    amiable  feeling,    and 
poisoning  every  social  and  domestic  charity."    By  the 
Calvinist  Christians,  on  the  odier  hand,   Arminianism 
is  denounced    "as  delusive,  dangerous,  and    ruinous 
to  inmiortal  souls." — (Close's  Sermons,  1831.)     Top- 
lady  affirms  that,    "  a  particle  of  it  never  attended  a 
saint  to  heaven."     "  Sochiians,"  says    the   Rev.  Mr. 
Cunningham,  in  his  Apostacy  of  the  Church  of  Rome, 
p.  168,  "  are  even  fartlier  removed  than  the  Church  of 
Rome."     The  Rev.  Mr.  Norris,  as  quoted  in  Aspland's 
plea,  denounces  their  doctrines  as  "envenomed    blas- 
phemies."    Arch.    Magee  says,   in  his   Discourse  on 
Atonement,   1809,  their  system  "embraces  the  most 
daring   impieties    that    ever    disgraced    tlie   name    of 
Christianity."     "  I  would  rather,"  says  the  Rev.  Mr. 
Carson,  "  be  the  veriest  prostitute,   the  disgraced  and 
infected  inhabitant  of  the  lowest  brothel,  than  be  Dr. 
Drummond,  (the  Arian.)     I  would  rather  be  a  Thur- 
tel,  the  sanguinar\^  and  premeditated  murderer,  than 
be  Dr.  Priestly,  die  Unitarian."     See  Bib.  diristians, 
Nov.  1830,  p.  4.49.     Methodism,  according  to  the  Or- 


240 


INFLUENCE    OF    THE    BIBLE    ON    SOCIETY. 


tliodox  Church  Magazine,  for  1802,  p.  326,  derived 
botli  its  origin  and  its  name  from  the  Methodism  of 
the  Devil.  "  The  Methodists,''  says  the  Rev.  Calven- 
ist  Mnlock,  in  his  Divine  Truth,  p.  129,  1821,  "  and 
other  miserably-misled  fanatics,  are  awfully  alicnaied 
from  all  knowledge  of  the  true  God.  Their  expei-i- 
ences,  when  tried  by  Scripture,  are  found  to  be  details 
of  the  polluted  workings  of  the  imagination  in  minds 
stimulated  by  the  ravings  of  the  hot-brained  enthusi- 
asts. They  have  contrived  what  may  be  termed  con- 
vulsive (Christianity,  a  system  of  sighs,  groans,  and 
sensual  impulses,  to  supersede  that  glorious  faith. — 
Looking  through  the  annals  of  Methodism,  the  Chris- 
tian cannot  fail  to  notice  the  subtlety  of  Satan,  in  thus 
sensonal)ly  providing  a  substitute  for  Popery  in  the 
hour  of  its  decline.  It  retahis  everything  of  Popery, 
but  its  gorgcousness  and  ritual  observances.  The 
same  depraved  deference  to  human  nature,  stamps  it 
as  the  religion  of  con'upt  Jiumnn  natiire''^  The  whole 
body  of  Protestant  Dissenters,  in  Godolplnu's  Report, 
p.  02.3,  are  denounced  "  as  accursed,  devoted  to  the 
Devil,  and  separated  from  Christ."  The  Rev.  Mr. 
Gathercole,  in  a  letter  to  a  dissenting  minister,  pub- 
lished in  1S34,  actually  declares  that,  "dissent  is 
worse  than  drunkenness,  and  its  followers  arc  actuated 
by  the  Devil,  and  the  curse  of  God  rests  heavily  on 
them  all  !  "  The  Church  of  England,  in  return,  is 
denounced  by  the  Unitarians  through  1)^.  Priestly,  in 
his  Remarks  on  Blackstone,  p.  171,  "as  idolatrous, 
and  consequently  a  deviation  from  the  gospel  of  the 
most  criminal  kind,"  and  by  the  Cahiiiists,  through 
the  Rev.  ^Ir.  Binncy,  as  quoted  in  the  Christian  Ob- 
server, 1834,  "  as  an  obstacle  to  the  progress  of  truth 
and  holiness  in  the  land,  and  that  it  destroys  more 
souls  than  it  savesP  The  Papal  religion  again  is  a'c- 
pudiated  by  Bishop  Warburton,  in  his  Principle  of 
Religion,  as  an  "impious  farce;"  and  by  the  Rev. 
Mr.  Cecil,  as  quoted  in  Cunningham's  Apostacy,  p. 
140,    as  "   the   masterpiece  of  Satan — a  complicated 


INFLUENCE    OF    THE    BIBLE    ON    SOCIETY.  241 

ix.,  and  Hob   V  '  -«»«'«''  Testament  on  Join, 

■'^iich,  then,  is  IJibloism,  as  it  ii      Si„.h  .1.      r 

dim„J     I  ^  7K   ?-      '^  damned,  because  everv  one 
damns  all  but  itsolt,  and  is  itself  damned  bv  499  '' 

truth.  ?1  mnucnce  hco.n  per?iicious  ?    Do  not 

initli  and   humanitv  a   ke  deminff  lUnt  ^f     i       n  V 

repudiated?     ()f  must  i    .till        .•  '^  ^^'"'"''^  ^'^ 

♦   I   1       1  ^'^^^'' ^"^  s^^h  continue  to  snroi^l  mr^ii 

tal  desolation  among  men  i     Must  i^f   .tm^       ii         7 

wnicl.    nnglit   otherwise  be  strewn  with    ilie    bri<.l, 
sZrj,'''''^'''^  •7--'«dge,  and  tru  h?     No' Sc 

io^r^l    „   H  "■""  8'''^"P  °f  priestcraft.     He   hai 

ncv«  ,  t^'rirtdi";.:  r^.^^^r^'^'^^^y'  -^ 

chorn^       T 1;        /   I       ^^  ^^^^  J^^"^^  in  its  glorious 

t  me  .^'u::;'j!;^s:s^::,S'S  llv^^ 

Ijo.  imagine  that  they  wilFLnfLe  ks  f^soid   v   hm 

of    .s  vital  Iv^v'"'"  "f  ""-^"'^'"'-^^  -'"  deprive 
Vict  ml  of  -,1  L  r /,""^,  Pf'-'S"mpt»o>>s  mortals  !_ 

victims  of  a  system  of  falsehood  and  imposture  !  N»! 


242  INFLUENCE    OF    THE    BIBLE    ON    SOCIETY. 

let  them  bid  the  wliirlwind  be  calm,  the  earthquake 
be  still,  the  thunderbolt  be  powerless,  the  ocean  be 
stagnant,  but  bid  not  the  human  mind  remain  quies- 
cent in  their  unholy  grasp.     No  ! 

"  Fear  not  that  the  tyrants  shall  rule  for  ever, 
Or  the  priests  of 'the  bloody  faith ; 
They  stand  on  the  brink  of  that  mighty  river. 

Whose  waves  they  have  tainted  with  death  : 
It  is  fed  from  the  depths  of  a  thousand  dells, 
Around  tliem  it  foams,  and  rages,  and  swells. 
And  their  swords  and  their  sceptres  I  fioatmg  see, 
Like  wrecks  oa  the  surge  of  eternity.'' 


LECTURE  THIRTEENTH. 


MORALITY  WITHOUT  THE   BIBLE. 


Friends — 

L\  the  address  I  recently  delivered  on  the  Morality 
of  the  Bible,  I  observed,  that  amongst   the  mass  of 
obscenity  and  immorality  which   characterized    that 
production,  there  might  probably  be  found  a  few  un- 
exceptionable  passages,  but  these  were  by  no  means 
original   or  transcendental.     Passages   as   good,    and 
m  many    instances,    much    better,    could    be   quoted 
from  the  writings  of  men  who  knew  nothing  of  the 
"Word   of  God,"    who    lived    centuries     before    the 
Christian  era,   and  whose   reputation    was  not   like 
the  alleged   authors  of  the  Bible,  tainted  with  crimes 
and  vices,  the  very  mention  of  which  was  pollution. 
I  gave  a  few  instances  in  point,  promising  that  on  a 
future  occasion  I  would   enter  fully  iiUo  the  subject. 
I  now  appear  to  redeem  that  promise. 

There  is  a  vulgar  notion  amongst  Christians  that 
there  never  were  any  views  of  morality  before  the 
l^ible  was  composed,  and  that  7vkhoift  the  Bible  we 
should  have  no  idea  of  right  and  wrong.  We  should 
be  left  without  a  moral  rudder  or  compass  to  steer  us 
through  the  ocean  of  life. 

This  notion  I  hold  to  be  as  absurd,  as  it  is  gratui- 
tous and  presumptuous.  Morality  existed  before  the 
Bible  existed,  and  morality  will  exist  when  the  Bible 
is  obsolete.     We  can  find  morality,  and  that  of  the 


244 


MORALITY    WITHOUT    THE    BIBLE. 


highest  and  purest  character — morality  utterly  un- 
mixed and  uncorrnptcd  with  the  obscenities,  barbari- 
ties, mysteries,  and  incongruitit^s  which  crowd  the 
pages  of  the  "  Holy  Scriptures,"  in  the  writings  of 
men  who  could  never  have  known  of  those  precious 
lucubrations. 

Morality,  therefore,  is  perfectly  independent  of  the 
Jewish  and  (>bristian  text  book. 

We  shall  first  remark  upon  a  few  of  the  authors  of 
ancient  Greece,  commencing  with  Thales.  I  may 
state  that  the  authorities  1  have  consulted  are  highly 
respectable.— Dr.  Mnlield's  "  History  of  Philosophy," 
and  "The  Student;  or,  the  Biography  of  Grecian 
Philosophers." 

Thales  was  born  B.  C.  013,  and  died  B.  C.  548. 
He  was  one  of  the  founders  of  the  (Grecian  schools  of 
philosophy,  and  so  ardent  was  his  thirst  for  know- 
ledge, that  he  gave  up  the  care  of  his  estate  to  his 
nephew.  Science  owes  much  to  Tlialcs,  which  can- 
not be  said  of  any  of  the  Bible  writers.  Though 
living  at  so  remote  a  period,  he  was  so  far  acquainted 
with  astronomy  and  mathematics,  as  to  be  able  to 
predict  an  eclipse,  and  to  determine  the  solar  revolu- 
tion with  such  accuracy,  that  he  corrected  the  Gre- 
cian calendar,  and  made  their  year  contain  3G5  days. 
His  moral  doctrines,  with  which  we  have  more  par- 
ticularly to  do,  on  this  occasion,  were  singularly 
excellent.  I  mentioned  in  my  address  on  the  moral- 
ity of  the  Bible,  that  he  taught  the  very  doctrine 
Christians  say  comprises  all  morality,  "  Do  unto 
others  as  you  would  wish  others  to  do  unto  you." 
This,  we  are  told,  is  the  "golden  rule,"  and  the  law 
by  which  the  moral  world  should  alone  be  governed. 
Now  this  law,  the  basis  of  all  morality,  was  pro- 
pounded by  a  philosopher,  who  was  ignorant  of  the 
Scriptures,  who  wrote  600  years  before  Christ  was 
born,  300  years  before  the  Old  Testament  was  trans- 
lated into  Greek,  and  200  before  even  the  Old  Tes- 
tament vvas  compiled.     I   hold,  then,  that  this,    the 


MORALITY    WITHOUT   THE   BIBLE. 


245 


X 


fundamental  principle  of  morality,  is  altogether  inde- 
pendent of   the    I^ible,  and  were   that   book   forgotten 
to-morrow,    the    acknowledged    standard    of    morals 
would   still    be   left   to   regulate   the  actions  of  man- 
kind.    The  words  of  Thales  are,  "Avoid  doing  what 
you  would  blame  others  for  doing."     He  also  taught 
that   noble   aphorism,    "  Know^  thyself"     How   soon 
would  vice  and  disease  be  unknown  if  this  injunction 
was   universally  followed!     He   likewise  says,  "J,et 
your  study  be  to  correct   the  blemishes  of  the  mind, 
rather  than  those  of  the  face."    Were  this  the  practice 
of  the  world   at  the  present  moment,  we  should  see 
society  adorned  with  wise  and  good   men,  instead  of 
being,  as  it  is,   overrun  with  dandies   and  coquettes. 
"  Stop    the  mouth    of  slander,"   says    he,   "  by   pru- 
dence." "  Enrich  not  thyself  by  unjust  means."     "  f5e 
not   idle,   though   rich."     "  Learn,   and   teach   better 
thmgs."      "  Let  not   any  words  fall   from  thee  which 
may  accuse  thee  to  him  who  hath  committ(;d  anythin<^ 
in  trust  to  thee."    "  Entertain  not  evil."     "  Idleness  is 
troublesome."    "  Intemperance  hurtful."     "  Ignorance 
intolerable."     "  Use  moderation."     "  Believe  not  all." 
"If  a  governor,  rule   thyself."     "Be  equally  mind- 
ful of  friends,   present  and  absent."      "Cherish   thy 
parents,"    which   is  a   beautiful   contrast    to  Christ's 
doctrine  of  "  He  who  hates   not   his   father  and  his 
mother,"   &c.     "  What  thou   bestowest  on   thy  ])ar- 
cnts,   thou  shalt   receive   from  thy  children  in   thine 
old  age."     A  beautiful  exhortation  to   filial  duty  and 
alfection.     He  gives   the  following  rational  defiliition 
of  human  happiness: — "Sound  health,  moderate  for- 
tune, and  a  mind  well  stored  with  knowledge;  these 
arc  the  grand  ingredients  of  happiness." 

Find  me  morality  better  than  this  in  the  Bible. 
Give  me  any  name  from  the  Scriptures  that  can  be 
compared  to  this  Grecian  sage.     I  defy  you. 

^\  e  will  now  speak  of  Solon,  the  immortal  law- 
giver of  Athens,  a  ditfereut  character,  I  assure  you, 
to  the  Biblical  sage,  Solomon.     He  lived  from  638  to 

21* 


246 


MORALITY    WITHOUT    THE    BIBLE. 


558  B.  C.  Up.  observed,  "Make  reason  thy  guide" 
— not  blind  faith  as  incnlcated  by  Panl  and  Peter. 
Also  says  he,  "Study  excellence,  and  aim  at  acquir- 
ing it."  "  In  everything  you  do,  learn  to  consider 
the  end."  "  l^aws  are  like  cobwebs  which  entangle 
the  lesser  sort,  the  greater  break  dirough."  "  Cherish 
thy  friend."  "Reverence  thy  parents."  "Those  are 
happy,"  he  remarks,  "who  are  competently  furnished 
with  outward  things,  act  honestly,  and  live  temper- 
ately." This  great  patriot  died  with  the  conviction, 
that  "he  had  left  the  world  better  for  having  lived  in 
it,"  not  as  Solomon,  exclaiming,  "all  is  vanity." 

Pittacus,  the  next  distinguished  author  of  antiqui- 
ty from  whom  1  shall  quote,  was  one  of  th*e  seven 
wise  men  of  ( Greece,  lie  flourished  about  570  B.  O. 
He  also,  with  Tliales.  as  mentioned  on  a  former  oc- 
casion,  taught  identically  tlie  same  doctrine,  as  tliat 
which  is  said  to  be  the  corner-stone  of  all  morality, 
and  which  Christians  pretend  is  so  peculiar  to  their 
own  system.  He  says,  -'Avoid  doing  that  to  your 
neighbor,  which  you  would  take  amiss  if  he  was  to 
doit  to  yon."  He  also  taught,  "Whatever  you  do, 
do  It  well."  "  Never  boast  of  your  plans  before  they 
arc  executed,  for  fear  of  the  ridicule  and  disappoint- 
ment to  which  you  will  be  exposed  if  you  do  not 
accomplish  them."  Pittacus  felt  a  supreme  contempt 
and  disgust  at  that  beastly  habit,  I  was  going  to  say, 
crime,  drunkenness.  He  proposed  from  the  public 
forum  of  Athens,  that  every  fault  committed  while 
the  person  was  in  a  state  of  intoxication,  instead  of 
being  excused,  should  receive  double  punishment. 

I  wonder  what  Pittacus  would  have  thought  if  he 
had  heard  of  the  freaks  of  that  Bible  moralist,  Noah  ! 
What  a  contrast  between  these  heathen  philosophers 
and  those  Scriptural  heroes ! 

l^ias,  another  of  the  seven  wise  men  of  Greece, 
who  flourished  about  556  B.  (y.,  taught  that  the  value 
of  knowledge  was  above  all  price.  During  an  in- 
vasion of  his  country,   one  of  his  friends  observed 


MORALITY    WITHOUT    THE    BIBLE. 


247 


with  surprise  that  he  took  no  means  of  preserving 
anything,  Bias  replied,  alluding  to  the  knowledge  he 
had  acquired,  "  I  carry  all  my  treasures  with  me." 

Chilo,  another  of  the  wise  men,  was  a  Spartan, 
and  a  man  of  the  most  rigid  integrity.  He  was 
made  one  of  the  Spartan  Ephori.  He  lived  542  years 
B.  C.  The  following  are  a  few  of  the  moral  precepts 
inculcated  by  that  model  of  virtue.  "  Honest  loss  is 
preferable  to  shameful  gain" — a  hint  which  might 
be  useful  to  many  trading  Christians  of  the  present 
day.  "  If  you  are  great,  be  condescending,  for  it  is 
better  to  be  loved  than  to  be  hated  " — a  hint  which 
might  also  be  of  service  to  many  Christian  despots, 
in  this  Christian  age.  "  Think  before  you  speak." 
"  Gold  is  tried  by  the  touchstone,  and  men  are  tried 
by  gold."  "  Do  not  desire  impossibilities."  "  Never 
ridicule  the  unfortunate." 

Cleobulus,  another  of  the  seven,  taught  a  doctrine 
much  similar  in  spirit,  though  less  paradoxical  in 
language,  to  that  boasted  doctrine  of  Christ's,  which 
is  said  by  Christians  to  be  so  pre-eminently  chari- 
table and  moral,  viz.,  "  liOve  your  enemies."  Cleo- 
bulus says,  "  Be  kind  to  your  friends  that  they  may 
continue  such ;  and  to  your  enemies  that  they  may 
become  your  friends."  Cleobulus  lived  571  years 
B.  C.  If,  therefore,  there  be  any  merit  in  that  dogma, 
it  is  due  to  the  former.  The  following  were  also  his 
maxims: — "Avoid  excess;"  "Be  more  desirous  to 
hear  than  to  speak  ;  "  "  Before  you  go  home,  think 
what  you  have  to  do — when  you  come  home,  ex- 
amine vourself  and  consider  whether  you  have  done 
all  well." 

I  shall  now  speak  of  that  illustrious  moral  teacher, 
Socrates,  the  Robert  Owen  of  Athens.  No  character 
in  the  Bible  can  be  compared  to  that  virtuous  sage. 
His  life  was  one  of  exalted  goodness  and  utility.  No 
one  can  contemplate  his  actions  and  his  teachings 
without  feeling  a  better  man,  and  few,  I  think,  can 
read  of  his  cruel  death  without,  as  Cicero  remarks, 


248 


MORALITY    WITHOUT    THB    BIBLE. 


shodding  tears.  Socrates  is  a  glorious  answer  to  that 
insnirorable  piece  of  cant  and  assurance — tliat  unless 
a  man  is  a  ('liristian  or  a  believer  in  the  liible,  he 
cannot  be  a  good  man.  The  character  of  ( 'hrist 
himself,  considered  only  in  its  most  favorable  features, 
falls  quite  into  the  shade,  when  placed  in  juxtaposi- 
tion with  that  of  the  Athenian  moralist.  J)r.  Knlield, 
wlio  was  a  Christian  minister  and  historian  of  con- 
siderable celel)rity,  admits  that  Socrates  was  "a  man 
whose  penetrating  judgment,  exalted  virtue,  and  lib- 
eral spirit,  united  with  exemplary  integrity  and  purity 
of  maimers,  entitled  him  to  the  highest  distinction 
among  the  ancient  philosophers.^' 

Time  will  only  admit  of  my  (pioting  a  few  of  his 
maxims.  He  taught  that  "  True  felicity  is  not  to  be 
derived  from  external  possessions,  but  from  wisdom, 
which  consists  in  the  knowledge  and  practice  of 
virtue;  that  the  cultivation  of  virtuous  manners  is 
necessarily  attended  with  pleasure,  as  well  as  profit 
— that  the  honest  man  alone  is  happy,  and  that  it  is 
absurd  to  sej)arate  things  which  in  nature  are  so 
closely  united  as  virtue  and  interest.''  lie  held  that 
honors  and  riches  ought  to  be  secondary  to  the  ac- 
quisition of  sound  knowledge.  "  The  wealth  of  a 
covetous  man,"  he  beautifully  observes,  "is  like  the 
sun  after  it  is  i^ct — it  cheers  nobody."  "  Believe  not 
those  who  praise  all  your  actions,  but  tliose  who  re- 
prove your  faults." 

W  hen  solicited  by  Crito  to  escape  from  his  cruel 
imprisonment,  he  nobly  replied,  "That  no  man  on 
any  pretence,  should  return  an  injury  for  an  injury," 
a  sentiment  worthy  of  such  a  philanthropist.  Socra- 
tes was  essentially  a  practical  moralist.  Christ,  when 
in  his  best  humors,  was  but  a  theorist.  Socrates  was 
born  161),  and  died  lUO  years  0.  C. 

Aristi[)pus,  the  lounder  of  the  rVreniac,  who  flou- 
rished about  365  years  before  the  Christijui  epoch, 
promulgated  some  very  sound  and  enlightened  views 
of  morality.      He  was  the  l>entham  of  that  age      His 


MORALITY    WITHOUT    THE    BIBLE. 


249 


opinions  are  decidedly  utilitarian.  He  held  that 
pleasure  was  the  ultimate  object  of  human  pursuit, 
and  that  happiness  consisted  rather  in  a  pleasing  agi- 
tation of  the  mind,  or  active  enjoyment,  than  in  indo- 
lence or  tranquillity.  "  Prefer  labor  to  idleness,"  says 
he,  "imlessyou  would  prefer  rust  to  brightness." — 
"  The  truly  learned  arc  not  those  that  read  mucli,  but 
those  who  read  what  is  useful  "—a  very  judicious 
observation.  "Friendship,"  he  remarks,  "is  recipro- 
cal benevolence  which  inclines  each  individual  to  be 
as  anxious  for  another  person's  welfare  as  for  his 
own."  "It  is  better  to  be  poor  than  illiterate,  for  the 
poor  only  want  money,  the  illiterate  want  the  distin- 
guishing characteristics  of  human  nature." 

The  following  is  quite  equal  to  the  boasted  wisdom 
of  Solomon,  as  given  in  the  passage,  "Train  up  a 
child  in  the  way  he  should  go,  and  when  he  is  old  he 
will  not  depart  from  it."  Aristippus  remarks,  "Young 
people  should  be  taught  those  things  which  will  be 
useful  to  them  when  they  become  men."  Contrary 
to  the  opinion  of  that  arch-apostle,  Paul,  Aristi])pus 
entertained  a  high  opinion  of  the  utility  and  advanta- 
ges of  philosophical  inquiry.  Being  asked  by  a  friend, 
"  What  is  the  advantage  you  receive  from  philoso- 
phy 7  "  he  replied,  "  It  enables  me  to  converse  freely 
with  all  mankind  "—a  noble,  liberal,  and  enlighten- 
ed sentiment.  As  much  could  not  be  said  for  religion ; 
especially  the  Christian  religion.  It  teaches,  through 
its  apostle  John,  "  If  there  come  any  unto  you,  and 
bring  not  this  doctrine,  receive  him  not  in  your  house, 
neither  bid  him  God-speed;"  nay,  says  Paul,  "let 
him  be  accursed;"  and  Christ  himself  remarks,  with 
that  bitterness  so  peculiar  to  Iiim,  "  when  ye  depart 

from   his   house,    shake  off  the  dust  of  your  feet." 

()!  how  nobly  docs  the  si)irit  of  the  heathen  philoso- 
pher rise  above  that  of  the  Christian  bigot,  morality 
alx>ve  religion,  philosophy  above  superstition  ! 

We  will  now  refer  to  Aristotle,   one  of  the  leading 
philosophers   of  antiquity,    and    unquestionably    tlie 


I 


250 


MORALITY    WITHOUT    THE    BIBLE. 


most  varied  and  voluminous  writer  of  any  age.  He 
was  born  384  B.  C,  and  died  322  B.  C. 

Where  will  you  find  a  better  definition  of  justice 
than  the  following?  "Justice  is  the  virtue  of  treating 
every  one  according  to  his  deserts.''  '•  Justice  includes 
the  observance  of  the  laws  for  the  preservation  of  so- 
ciety, and  the  discharge  of  obligations  and  debts  be- 
tween equals."'  He  also  taught  the  following  excellent 
maxims:  "Learning  is  the  best  provision  against 
old  age."  "  Friends,  are  one  soul  in  two  bodies." — 
"  There  is  just  as  much  difference  between  the  wise 
and  the  foolish  as  there  is  between  the  living  and  the 
dead."  '•'  A  virtuous  life  is  itself  a  source  of  delight;  " 
a  splendid  sentiment.  Again,  "  the  purest  and  noblest 
pleasure  is  that  which  a  good  man  derives  from  virtu- 
ous actions."  Will  you  tell  me  there  is  no  morality 
in  that  sentiment  I  Find  me  a  passage  in  the  whole 
of  the  Bible  to  equal  it.  "  V  irtue  is  either  theoretical, 
or  practical ;  theoretical  virtue  consists  in  the  due  ex- 
ercise of  the  understanding — practical,  in  the  pursuit 
of  what  is  right  and  good."  "  Happiness,"  says  he, 
"consists  in  a  conduct  conformable  to  virtue."  These 
sentiments  are  worthy  of  an  enlightened  and  good 
man,  and  are  infinitely  superior  to  the  Bible  morality. 

Antisthenes,  the  founder  of  the  Cynic  sect,  pro- 
pounded many  useful  maxims — maxims  which  ought 
to  make  some  of  our  modern  Christian  moralists 
blush.  He  had  a  great  antipathy  to  war,  as  being 
alike  cruel  and  barbarous.  He  did  not  exhort  his  fel- 
low-citizens, in  the  language  of  Christ,  "If  you  have 
no  sword,  sell  your  garment  and  buy  one,"  but  as  be- 
came a  man  of  enlightenment  and  humanity,  he  en- 
treated his  countrymen  to  abandon  that  demoralizing 
and  inhuman  practice.  "  War,"  said  a  person  to  him 
on  one  occasion,  "  carries  off  many  wretched  behigs;  " 
and  this  is  the  cold  philosophy  of  not  a  few  of  our 
modern  Christians.  "  True,"  said  Antisthenes,  "  but 
it  makes  many  more  than  it  carries  ofiV  Well  would 
it  be  for  civilization,  if,  instead  of  having  more  Chris- 


t 


' 


MORALITY    WITHOUT    THE    BIBLE. 


251 


tians,  we  had  a  few  more  Antisthenites.  That  dis- 
tinguished man  flourished  about  390  years  before 
our  era. 

Pythagoras,    who   has   done   more   for   philosophy 
than  any  Christian,  taught  some  admirable  maxims. 
He   lived  500   years  B.  C.      "  Wisdom  and   virtue," 
says  he,  "are  our  best  defence,  every  other  guard  'is 
weak  and  unstable."     What  a  singular  contrast   to 
the  doctrine  of  Paul,  "  If  a  man  be  ignorant— let  him 
be  ignorant  "—and  that  "a  man  is  justified   by  faith 
without  the  deeds  of  the  law  !  "     In  the  estimation  of 
that    Bible   moralist,    good   works    were   as    "  filthy 
rags."     Pythagoras   also   enjoined,    "  Do    what   you 
judge  to  be  right,  whatever  the  vulgar  may  think  of 
you;  if  you   despise   their  praise,    despise  also   their 
censure."     If  Christians  were  to  practice  this  injunc- 
tion  there  would  be  less  hypocrisy,  cant,   and  pro- 
fession amongst  them  than  at  present  prevails.     Men 
can  never  afford  to  keep  a  conscience,  till  they  dare 
to  keep  one.      Pytliagoras  attached   great  impo'rtance 
to  the  education    of  the  rising   generation.     He  re- 
marks, "Much  forethought  and  discretion  is  necessa- 
ry m  the  education  of  children.     The  following  beau- 
tiful advice  was  given  by  him  to  his  scholars :—"  Let 
not  sleep  fall   upon  thine  eyes   till   thou  hast   thrice 
reviewed   the  transactions  of  the  past  day.     Where 
have  I  turned  from   rectitude?     What  have  I   been 
doing?     What  have  I  left  undone  which  I  ouglit  to 
have  done  ?     Begin  thus  from  the  first  act,  and  pro- 
ceed ;  and  in  conclusion,  at  the  ill  which  thou  hast 
done  be  troubled,  and  rejoice  for  the  good." 

In  Democritus  we  likewise  find  many  worthy  sen- 
timents. He  was  highly  distinguished  among  the 
great  men  of  Greece  and  was  born  470  years  B  C 
and  died  361.  "It  is  criminal,"  says  he,  "not  only 
to  do  mischief,  but  to  wish  it."  "He  who  subdues 
his  passions  is  more  heroic  than  he  who  vanquishes 
an  enemy."  "  Do  nothing  shameful,  though  yon  arc 
alone."     "  Every  country  is  open  to  a  wise  man,  for 


252 


MORALITY    WITHOUT    THE    BIBLE. 


he  is  a  citizen  of  the  world."  The  following  noble 
sentiment  is  found  in  the  writings  of  this  great  man, 
and  is  in  advance  even  of  this  age: — "It  is  the  office 
of  prudence,  where  it  is  possible,  to  prevent  injuries, 
but  where  this  cannot  be  done,  a  wise  regard  to 
our  own  tranquillity  will  prevent  us  from  revenging 
them."  "  We  are  often  told  of  that  ejaculation  of 
Christ's — "  Father,  forgive  them,  for  they  know  not 
what  they  do."  But  this  sentiment  from  Democritus 
includes  all  the  humanity,  and  incomparably  more 
enlightenment  than  Christ's  famous  exclamation. 

We  must  now  notice  Epicurus,  whose  mildness, 
temperance,  and  virtue,  might  have  taught  a  useful 
lesson  to  such  Bible  moralists  as  Moses,  Joshua, 
Samuel,  David,  and  Solomon.  That  admirable  phi- 
losopher was  born  3 11  years  B.  C,  and  died  270.  lie 
held  the  following  enlightened  views: — "Philoso- 
phy is  the  exercise  of  reason  in  search  of  happiness. 
Those  things,  therefore,  that  neither  assist  in  the 
pursuit,  nor  add  to  the  amount  of  happiness,  are  of 
no  value.*'  '•Temperance,"  he  remarks,  "is  that 
discreet  regulation  of  the  desires  and  passions  by 
which  we  are  enabled  to  enjoy  pleasure  without 
suffering  consecpient  inconvenience."  To  be  impi- 
ous," says  he,  "  is  not  to  take  away  from  the  illiter- 
ate the  gods  Avhich  they  have,  it  is  to  attribute  to 
those  gods  the  opinions  of  the  vulgar."  How  appli- 
cable is  this  definition  to  the  Bible  believers !  Epi- 
curus likewise  taught,  "  Since  it  is  every  man's 
interest  to  be  happy,  through  the  whole  of  life,  it  is 
the  wisdom  of  every  one  to  employ  philosophy  in  the 
search  of  felicity  without  delay,  and  there  cannot  be 
a  greater  folly  than  to  be  always  beginning  to  live." 
"  We  must  philosophise,  not  for  show,  but  seriously, 
for  it  is  requisite  not  that  we  seem  sound,  but  that 
we  be  sound."  "  Let  us  endeavor  so  to  live  ihat  we 
may  not  repent  of  the  time  past " — a  most  sound  and 
valuable  aphorism — "The  life  of  a  fool  is  unpleas- 
ant."    "Justice,"  he  wisely  remarks,  "respects  man 


MORALITY    WITHOUT    THE    BIBLE. 


253 


as  living  in  society,  and  is  the  common  bond,  without 
which  no  society  can  subsist.  Tliis  virtue,  like  the 
rest,  derives  its  value  from  its  tendency  to  promote 
the  happiness  of  life.  Not  only  is  it  never  injurious 
to  the  man  who  practices  it,  but  nourishes  in  his 
mind  calm  reflections  and  pleasant  hopes;  whereas 
it  is  impossible  that  the  mind  in  which  injustice 
dwells  should  not  be  full  of  disquietude.  Since  it 
is  impossible  that  iniquitous  actions  should  promote 
the  enjoyment  of  life,  so  much  as  remorse  of  con- 
science, legal  penalties,  and  public  disgrace  must  in- 
crease its  troubles,  every  one  who  follows  the  dictates 
of  sound  reason  will  practice  the  virtues  of  justice, 
equity,  and  fidelity."  Such  arc  the  sentiments  of 
the  Grecian  sage  Epicurus.  Are  they  surpassed,  or 
equalled  by  any  of  the  Bible  moralists  I  The  various 
moral  maxims,  indeed,  which  have  been  elucidated 
by  Christian  divines  are  but  an  echo  of  the  teachings 
of  men  who  flourished  ages  before  Christianity  was 
promulgated,  and  who  knew  nothing  of  that  book, 
from  which  Christians  assume  all  true  morality  ema- 
nated, and  without  which  the  world  would  become 
a  moral  wilderness.  It  is  not,  therefore,  to  Clnis- 
tianity  we  are  originally  indebted  for  our  moral  prin- 
ciples ;  they  existed  before  Christianity  was  institu- 
ted, or  the  Bible  known.  Morality,  then,  I  repeat, 
is  independent  of  the  Scriptures — rests,  fortunately, 
upon  a  more  pure  and  imperishable  basis,  than  upon 
writings  so  immoral. 

To  prove  that  a  population  may  be  a  moral  popu- 
lation, and  still  ignorant  of  the  l^ible,  I  will  quote  a 
few  words  from  Addison,  author  of  "  Evidences  of 
Christianity,"  &c.,  and  which  confirm  the  preceding 
observations.  Alluding  to  the  reverence  for  truth 
among  the  ancient  Atlicnians,  he  observes  : — "  The 
virtue  of  the  ancient  Athenians  is  very  remarkable  in 
the  case  of  Euripides.  This  great  tragic  poet,  though 
famous  for  the  morality  of  his  plays,  had  introduced 
a  person  who,  being  reminded  of  an  oath  he  had 

22 


i^f^iSgf'VW!:'PI!^^tS^W^9^yV^"/!f^- 


251 


IVIOilALITY    WITHOUT   THE    BIDLE. 


taken,  replied,  I  swore  with  my  moiitli,  but  not  with 
my  heart.  The  impiety  of  this  sentiment  set  the 
audience  in  an  uproar;  made  Socrates  (though  an 
intimate  friend  of  the  poet)  go  out  of  the  theatre 
with  indignation,  and  gave  so  great  offence,  that  he 
was  pubhcly  accused,  and  brought  upon  his  trial, 
as  one  who  had  suggested  an  evasion  of  what  they 
thought  the  most  holy  and  indissoluble  bond  of  hu- 
man society.  So  jealous  were  these  virtuous  heath- 
ens of  the  smallest  hint  that  might  open  a  way  to 
perjury." 

I'his  circumstance  transpired  nearly  500  years  be- 
fore the  existence  of  Christianity.  What  a  glorious 
contrast  to  the  ('liristian  population  of  the  lOtli  cen- 
tury !  The  admirers  of  Jack  Sheppard  and  Dick 
Tiirpin  !  hi  England,  the  grand  emporium  of  Chris- 
tianity, the  land  of  Bibles,  churches,  and  parsons, 
Dr.  Price  informs  us,  that  there  are  "a  million  of 
perjuries  committed  annually."  How  strange  the 
difference  between  ancient  (Greece,  and  modern  Eu- 
rope ;  one  the  nursery  of  heathenism — the  other  of 
Christianity  ! 

1  will  now  briefly  refer  to  the  morality  of  the  an- 
cient Romans.  What  says  their  great  moral  teacher, 
Seneca  ?  After  denouncing  that  monster  crime,  and 
eminently  Christian  practice,  war,  he  asks,  '•  How- 
are  we  to  behave  towards  our  fallen  creatures?  How 
must  we  answer  it?  What  rules  shall  we  lay  down? 
Shall  we  say  that  we  ought  to  spare  the  effusion  of 
human  blood  ?  How  small  a  matter  it  is  not  to  hurt 
liim,  whom  we  are  bound,  by  every  obligation,  to  do 
all  the  good  to  in  our  power !  A  prodigious  merit, 
indeed,  if  man  is  mild  and  gentle  to  his  fellow  man ! 
We  are  all  limbs  of  one  great  body.  Nature  pro- 
duces us  all  as  relations  one  to  another.  She  inspired 
us  with  mutual  love,  and  m.ade  us  social.  Accord- 
ing to  her  lavvrs,  it  is  a  more  wretched  thing  to  do  an 
injury^  than  to  suffer  death."  Such  are  the  moral 
principles  of  a  Pagan — one  who  was  never  blessed 


MORALITY    WITHOUT    THE    BIBLE. 


255 


with  "  the  light  of  the  Gospel."  Let  me  not  be  told 
that  no  morality  is  to  be  found  but  in  the  Christian's 
Bible,  while  "Seneca's  morals"  can  be  read,  liistcn 
to  the  moral  philosophy  of  another  Roman,  no  less 
a  man  than  the  illustrious  Cicero.  In  his  Book  on 
Laws  there  is  the  following  glorious  moral  truth  : 
'•  The  universal,  immutable,  and  eternal  law  of  all 
intelligent  beings  is,  to  promote  the  happiness  of  one 
another  like  children  of  the  same  father."  Again, 
'*  The  great  law  imprinted  on  the  liearts  of  all  men, 
IS  to  love  the  public  good,  and  the  members  of  the 
common  society  as  themselves."  Is  there  anything 
to  excel  this  in  the  Bible?  Yet  Cicero  had  the  mis- 
fortune to  live  before  "our  Saviour." 

Let  me  now  speak  of  a  people  who  knew  nothing 
of  our  inspired  text-book — the  Chinese.  The  ancient 
inhabitants  of  that  vast  empire  had  a  great  number 
of  books,  principally  on  morals.  The  more  impor- 
tant of  those  writings  are  called  IJikn,  or  the  five 
volumes ;  and  Xu  Xu,  or  the  four  volumes.  Tac 
first  of  the  five  is  called  Xu  Kin.  It  was  writhy 
long  before  the  time  of  Moses,  and  contains  a  histore 
of  the  kings  and  sages  of  the  first  ages,  with  thev 
wise  sayings  and  moral  maxims.  The  second  is 
called  Xi  Kim,  and  contains  a  history  of  twellii 
kings,  written  in  rhyme,  interspersed  with  moret 
maxims. 

Confucius  says,  that  the  universal  moral  idea  of 
the  book  is,  "Think  nothing  that  is  wicked  or  im- 
pure." The  third  is  called  Xe  Kim.  This  is  con- 
sidered the  most  ancient  of  all  the  books,  and  is 
ascribed  to  Fohi  himself.  It  cannot  now  be  deci- 
phered. The  fourth  is  named  Chun  Creu,  or  Spring 
and  Summer.  It  was  compiled  by  Confucius,  and 
treats  of  the  rise  of  kingdoms  by  virtue,  and  their 
fall  by  vice — Spring  representing  the  rise,  and  Sum- 
mer the  fall.  The  fifth  is  called  the  Li  Ki,  or 
Memoirs  of  Rights  and  Duties,  and  was  compiled  by 
Confucius,  chiefly  from  materials   previously  existing. 


256 


MORALITY    WITHOUT    THE    BIBLE. 


In  this  production  the  following  moral  precept  is  pro- 
pounded, precisely  the  same  precept  as  that  said  to 
constitute  the  basis  of  Christian  morals.  The  pas- 
sage exhorts  the  followers  of  Fohi  to  "  Do  to  another 
what  you  would  they  would  do  unto  you,  and  do 
not  unto  another  what  you  would  should  not  be 
done  unto  you;  thou  only  needeth  this  law  alone,  it 
is  the  foundation  and  principle  of  all  the  rest." — 
Moral  24.. 

This  is  just  saying,  almost  in  the  same  language, 
"  Do  uiUo  others  as  you  would  wish  others  do  unto 
you."  Now  Confucius  lived  500  years  before  Christ, 
and  if  the  "  Memoirs  of  Rights  and  Duties,"  in  which 
this  moral  is  inculcated,  be  but  a  compilation,  to  a 
great  extent,  of  moral  precepts  previously  existing 
among  the  Chinese,  it  is  highly  probable  this  ''  gold- 
en rule,"  said  first  to  be  promulgated  by  Christ,  had 
been  current  among  that  ancient  people  thousands 
of  years  before  our  era.  This  fact  proves  the  utter 
want  of  originality  in  Christian  ethics,  and  that  mo- 
rality can  exist  without  the  Bible. 

The  following  passages  from  the  writings  of  Con- 
fucius clearly  show  that  the  boasted  dogmas  of  for- 
giving injuries  for  which  Christ  has  been  so  much 
lauded,  was  taught  by  the  Chinese  moralists  long 
ere  die  "  Son  of  God"  was  "born."  "  Acknowledge 
thy  benefits,"  says  Confucius  in  his  maxims,  page 
133,  "  by  the  returu  of  other  benefits,  but  never  re- 
venge injuries." 

The  following  are  a  few  Chinese  proverbs,  which 
are  as  sensible  and  pure  as  any  of  Solomon's: — "As 
tlie  scream  of  the  eagle  is  heard  when  she  has  passed 
over,  so  a  man's  name  remains  after  his  death." 
"Following  virtue  is  like  ascending  an  eminence, 
pursuing  vice  is  like  rushing  down  a  precipice." 
"Man  perishes  in  the  pursuit  of  wealth,  as  a  bird 
meets  with  destruction  in  pursuit  of  its  food."  "  Pet- 
ty distinctions  are  injurious  to  rectitude;  quibbling 
words  violate   right  reason."     "  Those  who  respect 


J 


MORALITY    WITHOUT   THE   BIBLE. 


257 


themselves  will  be  honorable;  but  he  who  thinks 
ligluly  of  himself,  will  be  held  cheap  by  the  world.  ' 
"Time  flies  like  an  arrow:  days  and  months  like 
a  weavers  shuttle."  "  hi  making  a  candle  we  seek 
for  light;  light  to  illumine  a  dark  chamber;  reason 
to  enlighten  man's  heart."  "  In  security  do  not  for- 
get danger;  in  times  of  tranquillity  do  not  forget 
anarchy." 

The  Ancient   Persians.      We   find   morality  even 
among  this  people — a  people  whom  Christians  deem 
almost   beneath   contempt.      No   one,    I   opine,    will 
aflirm  that  they  had  the  "light  of  the  Gospel."     Mr. 
Dunlap,    in    his  unrivalled  defence   of  Abner  Knee- 
land,   who   was   tried    for   blasphemy  in   America   a 
few    years    ago,   has   made    the    following  admirable 
remarks  upon   the  morality  of  that  people,  as  con- 
trasted with  that  of  modern  Christians,   in  proof  of 
the  position  T  am  maintaining,  that  morality  is   inde- 
jjcndent   of  the    Bible.     He    observes,    "  Illustrations 
from    history    abundantly    sliow    that    morality    ^an 
exist  without  Christianity.     Is  there  not  a   beautiful 
instance  in  ancient  history  of  forgiveness  of  an  ene- 
my, and  magnanimity  to  a  fallen  foe,  which  the  bend 
of  the  Church   of  llngland   in   our  time — the  Prince. 
Regent  of  the  i^ritish  empire,  had  not  the  lofty  virtue 
to   imitate?     1   allude   to   the   difibrent   treatment  of 
Themistocles,   and   the  modern  Themistocles  (mean- 
ing  Napoleon)   by  the  heathen   and  Christian   moii- 
arclis.     Did  not  the  Persian  king  display  more  re<d 
virtue  than   the   Christian   sovereign?     Themistocles 
had    repulsed   the  fleets  and  armies    in   Persia,  and 
raised  the  Athenian  republic  to  that  pinnacle  of  glory 
which  Great   Britain  reached   when   the   vanquished 
Napoleon  came  a  suppliant   to  a  victorious  foe.     The 
statesman  of  Athens   experienced  the  ingratitude  of 
the  republic,  and  was  compelled   to  seek  at  the   Per- 
sian   Court,    a    retreat    from    the    persecution    ot'   his 
countrymen.     He  threw  himself  at   tlie   feet  of  the 
monarch  of  that  nation  whose  fleets  he  had  captured, 

22''- 


258 


MORALITY    WITHOUT    THE    BIBLE. 


and  wliose  immense  armies  he  had  overthrown  and 
asked  for  protection  and  liospitality.  Was  it  denied 
liim  I  No,  gentlemen  ;  all  enmity  was  forgotten 
wlien  they  beheld  the  great  man  of  the  age  in  the 
depth  of  distress,  lie  was  received  with  kindness 
and  entertained  with  honor,  l^ie  revennes  of  cities 
were  assigned  to  his  support,  and  the  illustrious 
and  unfortunate  Athenian  was  the  chief  among  the 
friends  of  the  king,  and  the  object  of  the  admiration 
of  his  brilliant  court.  Compare  the  conduct  of  the 
lieathen  pruice  with  the  treatment  of  the  Christian 
monarch,  of  a  greater  man  than  even  Themistocles. 
The  Emperor  Napoleon  was  received  under  circum- 
stances which  ought  to  have  bound  the  consciences 
of  a  (Jhristian  people,  and  the  honor  of  a  Christian 
government.  He  said  to  the  British  people,  '  I  come, 
like  Themistocles,  to  throw  myself  uihmi  the  hospi- 
tality of  the  British  people.'  But  he  was  not  receiv- 
ed by  this  Christian  governuHMit  as  was  Themistocles 
by  the  Persians.  He  was  denied  the  honorable  asy- 
lum he  sought.  Tlie  laws  of  nations- — the  dictates 
of  humanity,  and  the  i)reccpts  of  the  gospel  were 
violated,  and  he  was  borne  away  to  a  pestilent  rock 
m  the  midst  of  the  ocean,  which,  after  six  years  of 
his  cruel  exile  and  agony  had  elapsed,  was  rendered 
famous  as  the  tomb  of  the  greatest  character  in  the 
Pantheon  of  History.  Docs  not  the  virtue  of  tlie 
most  powerful  nation  of  antiquity,  and  the  most 
powerful  Christian  nation  of  modern  times,  demon- 
strate that  morality  can  exist  without  ChrislianUy  I  " 
Ancient  Hindoos.  —  hi  the  Braminical  books,  as 
quoted,  in  the  "Materials  for  Thinking,"  1  find  the 
following  moral  sentiments,  which  do  honor  to  hu- 
manity ;  they  are  only  a  few,  liowever,  of  what 
mii^ht  be  adduced.  Tell  me  not  that  there  is  no 
morality  without  the  Bil)le,  while  such  passages  as 
these  can  be  found  in  the  writings  of  a  people  who 
know  nothing  of  it.  "  iS'ever  to  hear  patiently  of 
evil,    nor   to   spare   that    which    is    mischievous    and 


M0R.VLITY    WITHOUT   THE    BIBLE. 


259 


wicked — utter  no  lies — practice  no  prevarication  or 
hypocrisy — use  no  deceit  or  over-reaching  in  trade 
or  dealing — never  oppress  the  weak  and  humble, 
nor  oiler  any  violence  to  your  neighbor — keep  your 
hands  from  pilfering  and  from  theft,  and  in  no  way 
whatever  injure  a  fellow  creature."  What  a  dilfer- 
cnt  scene  our  Bible-loving,  tract-distributing  coun- 
try would  present  if  these  beautiful  precepts  were 
practiced  ! — precepts  given  long  before  Christianity 
"had  a  habitation  or  a  name,"  and  which  chalhuige 
a  comparison  with  any  of  our  "  ins])ircd  "  morals. 

We  will  now  notice  a  people  who  were  unknown 
to  Christians  till  so  late  a  period  as  the  11th  cen- 
tury —  the  American  Indians.  liven  this  unculti- 
vated race  entertained  views  of  morality  of  which 
"civilized"  Christians  might  be  proud.  The  reply 
of  the  famous  Indian,  Red  Jacket,  to  the  Christian 
Missionary,  Mr.  Cramp,  is  highly  characteristic. — 
The  priest  tells  the  Indians  that  they  were  in  dark- 
ness, and  that  there  could  be  only  one  true  religion, 
and  it  was  his.  The  reply  of  tlie  Indian  alfords  a 
memorable  instance  of  the  moral  dignity  and  sim- 
plicity of  that  virtuous  and  unsophisticated  ra(*e.  It 
is  given  in  Howitt's  "History  of  Christianity  and 
Colonization,"  p.  3U7 — 4Ul.  Red  Jacket  eloquently 
observes : — 

"  Brother,  you  say  you  want  an  answer  to  your 
talk  before  you  leave  this  place.  It  is  right  you 
should  have  one,  as  you  are  at  a  great  distance  from 
liome,  and  we  do  not  wish  to  detain  you;  but  we 
will  first  look  back  a  little,  and  tell  you  what  our 
fathers  have  told  us,  and  what  we  have  heard  from 
the  white  j)eople. 

"  Brother,  listen  to  what  we  say.  There  was  a 
time  when  our  forefathers  owned  this  great  island. 
Their  seats  extended  from  the  rising  to  the  setting 
sun.  The  Cireat  Spirit  had  made  it  for  the  use  of 
Indians.  He  had  created  the  buffalo,  the  deer,  and 
other   animals  for  food.     He  made  the  beaver   and 


260 


MOR.\LITy   WITHOUT   THE   BIBLE. 


the  bear,  and  their  skins  served  us  for  clothing.  He 
had  scattered  them  over  the  country,  and  taught  us 
how  to  take  them.  He  had  caused  tlie  eartli  to  j)ro- 
duce  corn  for  bread.  All  this  he  had  done  for  his 
red  children  because  he  loved  them.  If  wc  had  any 
disputes  about  hunting-grounds,  they  were  generally 
settled  without  the  shedding  of  much  blood;  but  an 
evil  day  came  upon  us:  your  foretathers  crossed  the 
great  waters,  and  landed  on  this  island.  Tlieir  num- 
btirs  were  small:  they  found  friends,  and  not  ene- 
mies; tliey  told  us  they  had  tied  from  their  own 
country  for  fear  of  wicked  men,  and  came  here  to 
enjoy  their  religion.  They  asked  for  a  small  seat. 
We  took  pity  on  them,  granted  their  request,  and 
they  sat  down  among  us.  We  gave  them  corn  and 
meat,  they  gave  us  poison  (spirituous  liquors)  m  re- 
tnrn.  The  white  people  had  now  found  out  our 
country,  tidings  were  carried  back,  and  more  came 
amongst  us ;  yet  we  did  not  fear  them,  we  took  them 
to  be  friends:  they  called  us  brothers,  we  helieved 
them  and  gave  them  a  larger  seat.  At  length  their 
numbers  had  greatly  increased,  they  wanted  more 
laiidj  —  they  wanted  our  country!  Our  eyes  were 
opened,  and  our  minds  became  uneasy.  Wars  took 
place  ;  Indians  were  hired  to  fight  against  Indians, 
and  many  of  our  people  were  destroyed.  They  also 
brought  strong  liquors  among  us ;  it  was  strong  and 
powerful,  and  has  slain  thousands. 

"Brother,  our  seats  were  once  large,  and  yours 
were  very  small.  You  have  now  become  a  great 
people,  and  we  have  scarcely  a  place  left  to  spread 
our  blankets.  You  hove  got  our  country,  but  are  not 
satisfied  ; — you  want  to  force  your  religion  upon  us. 

"Brother,  continue  to  listen.  You  say  that  you 
are  sent  to  instruct  us  how  to  worsliip  the  (ireat 
Spirit  agreeably  to  his  mind,  and  if  we  do  not  take 
hold  of  the  religion  which  you  white  people  teach, 
we  shall  be  unhappy  hereafter.  You  say  that  you 
are  right,   and  we  are  lost ;  how  do  you  know  tins  I 


\  ^ 


MORALITY    WITHOUT    THE    BIBLE. 


261 


We  understand  that  your  religion  is  written  in  a 
book ;  if  it  was  intended  for  us  as  well  as  you,  why 
has  not  the  Great  Spirit  given  it  to  us,  and  not  only 
to  us,  why  did  he  not  give  to  our  forefathers  the 
knowledge  of  that  book,  with  the  means  of  under- 
standing it  rightly  ?  We  only  know  what  you  tell 
us  about  it ;  how  shall  we  know  what  to  believe, 
being  so  often  deceived  by  the  white  people  ? 

"  Brother,  you  say  there  is  but  one  way  to  worship 
and  serve  the  Great  S})irit.  If  there  is  but  one  re- 
ligion, why  do  you  white  people  differ  so  much  about 
ii'l  why  not  all  agree,  as  you  can  jdl  read  the  book? 

"  Brother,  we  do  not  understand  these  things.  We 
are  told  that  your  religion  was  given  to  your  tore- 
fathers,  and  has  been  handed  down  I'rom  father  to 
son.  W^e'also  have  a  religion  which  was  given  to 
our  forefathers,  and  has  been  handed  down  to  us 
their  children.  We  worship  that  way.  It  teaches 
us  to  be  thankful  for  all  the  favors  we  receive  ;  to 
love  each  other,  and  to  be  united ; — wc  never  quarrel 
about  religion. 

"Brother,  the  Great  Spirit  has  made  us  all;  but 
he  has  made  a  great  dilferencc  hetwcen  his  white 
and  red  children.  He  has  given  us  a  different  com- 
plexion, and  diiferent  customs.  To  you  he  lias  given 
the  arts;  to  these  he  has  not  opened  our  eyes.  We 
know  these  things  to  be  true.  Since  he  has  made  so 
great  a  difference  between  us  in  other  things,  why 
may  we  not  conclude  that  he  has  given  us  a  differein. 
religion  according  to  our  understanding 7  The  Great 
Spirit  does  right :  he  knows  what  is  best  for  his 
children  :   we  are  satisiied. 

"  Brother,  we  do  not  wish  to  destroy  your  religion, 
or  take  it  from  you  ;    we  only  want  to  enjoy  our  own. 

"  Ih'other,  you  say  you  have  not  come  to  get  our 
land  or  our  money,  but  to  enlighten  our  minds.  I 
will  now  tell  you  that  I  have  been  at  your  meetings, 
and  saw  you  collecting  money  from  the  meeting.  1 
cannot   tell  what  this  money  was  mtended   for,  but 


262 


MORALITY    WITHOUT    THE    BIBLE. 


suppose  it  was  yonr  minister;  and,  if  we  shonld  con- 
form  to  your  way  of  tliinking,  perhaps  you  may  want 
some  from  us. 

"  Brother,  we  are  told,  that  you  have  been  preach- 
ing to  the  white  people  in  this  place.  These  people 
are  our  neighbors;  we  are  acquainted  with  them: 
we  will  wait  a  little  while,  and  see  what  elfect 
your  preaching  has  upon  them.  If  we  fmd  it  does 
them  good,  makes  ihem  honest  and  less  disposed 
to  cheat  hidians,  we  will  then  consider  again  what 
you  have  said. 

•'  Brother,  you  have  now  heard  our  answer  to  your 
talk;  and  this  is  all  we  have  to  say  at  present.  As 
we  are  going  to  part,  we  will  come  and  takcf  you 
by  the  hand,  and  hope  the  (ireat  Spirit  will  protect 
you  on   your  journey,  and  return   you  safe  to   your 

friends." . 

"  The  Missionary,  hastily  rising  from  his  seat,  re- 
fused to  shake  hands  with  them,  saying,  '  there  was 
no  fellowship  between  the  religion  of  (iod  and  the 
works  of  tlie  Devil.'  The  Indians  smiled  and  retired 
in  a  peaceful  manner." 

O !  what  a  contrast  between  the  Barl)arian  and 
the  Clu-istian!  How  noble  the  virtue  of  the  one, 
how  disgusting  the  bigotry  of  the  other  !  What  a 
glorious  triumph  of  morality  over  religion  !  What 
an  unanswerable  proof  that  a  people  may  be  virtuous 
Avithout  tlie  I>iblc,  and  vicious  with  it ! 

Not  only,  however,  can  we  find  morality  amongst 
people  who  were  entirely  ignorant  of  Christianity, 
but  even  amongst  those  who  were  ignorant  of  any 
religion — Atheists. 

D.  H.  Kolf,  in  a  work  entitled,  "  Voyages  of  the 
Dutch  Brig  of  War,  Donya,  through  the  Southern 
and  little  known  parts  of  the  Moluccan  Archipelago, 
and  along  the  previously  unknown  Southern  coast  of 
New  Guinea,  performed  during  the  years  of  1825-- 
'26,"  informs  that  the  inhabitants  of  the  Arm  Islands 
knew  nothing  of  a  God  or  a  future  state,  and  "  yet," 


I  ^ 


MORALITY    WITHOUT    THE    BIBLE. 


263 


says  he,  "  it  *is  not  a  little  remarkable  that  the  Ara- 
furas,  no'twithstanding  that  they  have  no  hope  of 
rewards,  or  fear  of  punishment  after  death,  live  in 
brotherly  peace  among  themselves  and  respect  the 
rights  of  property  in  the  fullest  sense."  Another 
extraordinary  instance  of  a  people  utterly  ignorant 
of  all  religion,  and  yet  virtuous  and  hospitable,  is 
mentioned  in  a  work  entitled,  "  Narrative  of  the 
loss  of  the  ship  Hercules,  Captain  Benjamin  Stout, 
on  the  Caffraria  Coast,  the  18th  of  June,  179G,  and 
subsequent  travel  through  the  southern  deserts  of 
Africa,  and  Colonies  of  the  Cape  of  Good  Hope,  ad- 
dressed to  the  Honorable  John  Adams,  President  of 
the  United  States  of  America."  After  giving  many 
highly  interesting  and  amusing  particulars  of  the 
anti-religion  of  this  singular  people  which  I  have 
not  time  to  read.  Captain  Stout  proceeds  to  express 
his  astonishment  and  delight  on  finding  "the  virtues 
of  hospitality  and  humanity  practiced  by  men  termed 
savages  by  their  oppressors,  but  who  put  civilized 
society  to  the  blush  by  their  conduct."  Yes,  our 
God-worshipping  and  soul-mongering  nations  would 
do  well  to  imitate  the  simple  virtues  of  a  people 
who  can  afford  to  be  moral  without  the  pious  stim- 
ulants of  heaven  and  hell.  How  nobly  and  masterly 
Mr.  Dunlap,  in  the  defence  previously  quoted,  com- 
bats the  stupid  assumption,  that  morality  is  insepa- 
rable from  Christianity  !  He  proceeds  :  —  ''I  have 
just  been  told  by  an  eminent  clergyman  of  this  city, 
who  is  now  within  the  reach  of  mv  voice,  that  some 
few  pious  Christians,  whose  zeal,  1  suppose,  a  little 
out-stripped  their  knowledge,  hold  that  morality  is 
exceedingly  dangerous,  as  it  induces  the  worker  oi 
righteousness  to  place  too  great  a  reliance  upon  this 
support,  and,  therefore,  brings  his  soul  into  greater 
peril  of  eternal  perdition.  The  world  has  been  told 
by  Dr.  Horsely,  a  proud  liOrd  in  lawn  of  the  House 
of  Lords  of  the  Imperial  Parliament  in  Great  Britain 
— that   Unitarianism,   being  heresy,  even  the  taoral 


R64 


MORALITY    WITHOUT    TH^:    BIBLE. 


good  of  the  Unitarians  is  sin.  According  to  the  doc- 
trine  of  such  Cliristians.  morahty  and  Christianity 
are  things  as  far  removed  from  each  other  as  earth 
from  heaven.  If  morahty  and  Christianity,  how- 
ever, be  one  and  the  same,  or  tilings  niscparahlc, 
how  were  societies  formed,  governments  estahhshed, 
and  nations  raised  to  power  and  glory  before  Jesus 
Christ  was  born,  and  tlie  ghxd  tidings  of  his  gospel 
proclaimed?  Upon  what  principle  was  society  rcgn- 
lated  during  the  thousands  of  years  which  this  globe 
rolled  through  tlie  fields  of  space,  in  its  appointed 
circuit  around  the  glorious  luminary,  the  centre  of 
our  system,  before  the  revelation  of  Christianity  was 
made/  Vv as  there  no  morality  in  the  days  of  Ho- 
mer's heroes,  amongst  whom  were  some  of  the  most 
glorious  characters  ever  described  in  any  work  of  fact 
or  imagination  ?  Was  there  no  morality  in  those 
heroic  ages^  or  were  the  sages  and  chiefs  of  the  llliad, 
the  Odyssey,  and  the  iKniad,  ideal  models  of  human 
excellence,  the  fanciful  creations  of  the  immortal  bards 
of  (Greece  and  Rome  ?  " 

Never  was  a  statement  more  unfounded,  or  more 
gratuitous,  than  that  all  morality  must  come  from 
the  Hil)lc,  and  that  we  are  weeds  without  it.  Mo- 
rality alone  emanates  from  a  book,  indeed,  which 
details  obscenities  so  revolting — immoralities  so  de- 
basing— crimes  so  monstrous,  and  butcheries  so  hor- 
rible !  What  an  absurdity!  What  a  libel  upon  the 
character  of  him  whose  virtue  rises  above  the  dark 
records  of  priests  and  impostors  !  But  Bible  or  no 
Bii)lc,  I  would  rather  live  one  brief  hour,  though  it 
were  in  perdition  itself,  with  the  spirit  of  a  Thales, 
a  Stxrates,  a  Plato,  and  an  Upicurus,  than  through 
all  eternity,  with  the  corrupted  remains  of  a  Moses, 
a  Joshua,  a  Samuel,  or  a  David.  With  the  one  I 
should  feel  ennobled  ;  the  other,  degraded.  The 
teach hig  and  practices  of  the  former  incite  to  the 
attainment  of  the  wise,  tlie  good,  and  the  beautiful, 
but  the  injunctions  and   doings  of  the  latter  instigate 


4. 


MORALITY    WITHOUT    THE    BIBLE. 


265 


to  all  that  is  degraded,  cruel,  and  vicious.  The 
morality  of  those  sages,  who  taught  long  before  the 
Bible  was  known,  or  Christianity  promulgated,  was, 
indeed,  ''pure  and  undefiled  ;  "  but  the  morality  of 
the  Scriptures,  what  little  there  be,  is  contaminated 
by  crimes  and  vices,  superstitions,  and  persecutions 
at  which  humanity  shudders,  and  which  has  hitherto 
converted  Christendom  into  an  arena  of  bigotry,  ig- 
norance, cant,  and  intolerance.  Morality,  then,  I 
reiterate, — morality,  sound  and  spotless,  existed  before 
the  Bible  existed,  and  morality  will  triumph  when 
that  production  is  exploded,  and  the  sooner  its  musty 
pages  are  closed  forever,  the  sooner  will  mental  lib- 
erty, moral  excellence,  and  intellectual  greatness  per- 
vade the  earth  ! 


END. 


23 


-.iK:**.-^  -  :-. -.---^i-ssft*,.."-*^ -'>«w'^..   ., -.-'^  *    4,„.^' 


,»-t-W   -1' 


n- 


y-**' 


v^'4' 


k\ 


£/^^ 


COLUMBIA  UNIVERSITY  LIBRARIES 


